Courtesy stigma: a hidden health concern among front‐line service providers to sex workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Courtesy stigma, also referred to as 'stigma by association', involves public disapproval evoked as a consequence of associating with a stigmatised individual or group. While a small number of sociological studies have shown how courtesy stigma limits the social support and social opportunities available to family members of stigmatised individuals, there is a paucity of research examining courtesy stigma among the large network of people who provide health and social services to stigmatised groups. This article presents results from a mixed methods study of the workplace experiences of a purposive sample of workers in a non-profit organisation providing services to sex workers in Canada. The findings demonstrate that courtesy stigma plays a role in workplace health as it shapes both the workplace environment, including the range of resources made available to staff to carry out their work activities, as well as staff perceptions of others' support. At the same time, it was evident that some workers were more vulnerable to courtesy stigma than others depending on their social location. We discuss these results in light of the existing literature on courtesy stigma and conclude that it is an under-studied determinant of workplace health among care providers serving socially denigrated groups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".