Rising to the Challenge: Addressing the Concerns of People Working in the Sex Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En septembre 2010, trois dispositions du Code criminel relatives à la prostitution ont été jugées inconstitutionnelles parce qu'elles contribuent à mettre en danger les personnes qui travaillent dans l'industrie du sexe (PTIS). En utilisant des données provenant d'études effectuées auprès de PTIS et d'informateurs clés dans plusieurs villes canadiennes, nous examinons trois domaines liés à la santé et à la sécurité des travailleuses : la santé et la sécurité au travail, les perceptions et les comportements à l'égard des travailleuses et l'accès aux services essentiels. Pour traiter ces questions, nous devons aller au-delà de la décriminalisation. Nous concluons que l'instauration d'un cadre de droits des travailleurs et de réduction de préjudices améliorerait grandement notre capacité d'aborder les problèmes liés aux droits et au bien-être physique, social et mental des PTIS. In September 2010, three Canadian Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution were ruled unconstitutional because they increase the risk of harm to people working in the sex industry (PWSI). Using data from studies with PWSI and key informants conducted in several Canadian cities, we examine three domains related to worker health and safety: occupational health and safety, perceptions of and behaviors toward workers, and access to essential services. Addressing these issues necessitates moving beyond decriminalization. We conclude that using a harm reduction/labor rights framework would enhance our ability to address issues related to the physical, social, and mental well-being as well as rights of PWSI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".