MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508391812

Trafficking in Women for Purposes of Sexual Exploitation: A Matter of Consent?

2003· article· en· W1508391812 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Monique Trepanier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian women's studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealmCoercion (linguistics)Subordination (linguistics)Sex traffickingCriminologyPolitical scienceInequalityLawHuman traffickingSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trafficking in women for purposes of forced prostitution and other exploitation within the commercial sex industry is recognized as a pressing global problem. International and domestic laws regulations and instruments relating to trafficking issues have been created not only to prevent and combat trafficking in persons but also to protect the rights and meet the needs of those who are victimized and exploited. Their successful application to this latter objective however is in part contingent upon the identification of a victim. This essay will explore recent Canadian and international legal responses to trafficking issues. The nature of trafficking in persons will first be examined followed by a discussion of whether choice or consent can be exercised within the realm of trafficking in women for sexual purposes. Finally the way in which current laws and initiatives may be viewed either as perpetuating gender inequality or as promoting an end to women’s subordination depending on one’s conclusions with respect to the consent or coercion of trafficked sex workers will also be discussed. (excerpt)

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.046
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian women's studiesSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207