MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502160125

Ladies of leisure: Parks, policy, and the problem of prostitution

2008· article· en· W1502160125 on OpenAlex
Caitlin M. Mulcahy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Recreation Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationRecreationSociology of leisureHarmSociologyLeisure studiesSex workHarm reductionWork (physics)CriminologyGender studiesSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parks have long been sites for sexual activity, deviant behaviour, violence, and prostitution (Flowers, Hart, & Marriot, 1999; Humphreys, 1970; Mitchell, 1995). Yet leisure researchers have tended to leave these less socially acceptable activities unexamined, focusing their analyses instead on the “benefits” of leisure (Glover, 2003; Rojek, 1999, 2000). This research aims to deviate from the “benefits approach” to leisure studies by conceptualizing prostitution as leisure. The need for “safe parks” for sex workers in Canada is advocated using a feminist, leisure studies, harm reduction framework. Exploring prostitution through a leisure studies lens can transform not only our conceptualization of sex work, but our conceptualization of recreation, leisure, and parks as well.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it