MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553267606

Canada Take Note: A Comparative Perspective on Trafficking

2003· article· en· W1553267606 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nadra Qadeer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian women's studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman traffickingState (computer science)CriminologyPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Sex traffickingEconomic growthSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to recent U.S. estimates at least 700000 people are trafficked within or across international borders each year (U.S. Trafficking in Persons Report 2003). As many as 20000 people mostly women and children are brought into the United States each year as victims of trafficking into slavery involuntary servitude peonage and forced labour (U.S. Department of State 2003). Although Canada has no comparable estimates there is growing evidence that it is a destination country for trafficked persons as well as a transit country for trafficking persons to the United States (Toronto Network Against Trafficking in Women et al). Canada has had a number of high profile trafficking cases in recent years many of which have involved forced prostitution and forced labour (Toronto Network Against Trafficking in Women et al). With profits for traffickers in the billions it is an enterprise that appeals to organized criminal networks corrupt agencies and opportunistic individuals. (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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0280.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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