Sexual relationship power and intimate partner violence among sex workers with non-commercial intimate partners in a Canadian setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little information on the private lives of women engaged in sex work, particularly how power dynamics within intimate relationships may affect intimate partner violence (IPV). Using baseline data of sex workers enrolled in a longitudinal cohort, "An Evaluation of Sex Workers' Health Access" (AESHA), the present study examined the association between sexual relationship power and IPV among sex workers in non-commercial partnerships in Vancouver, Canada. Pulweritz's Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) and The World Health Organization (WHO) Intimate Partner Violence against Women Scale (Version9.9) were used. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression techniques were used to investigate the potential confounding effect of sexual relationship power on IPV among sex workers. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Of 510 sex workers, 257 (50.4%) reported having an non-commercial intimate partner and were included in this analysis. In the past 6 months, 84 (32.7%) sex workers reported IPV (physical, sexual or emotional). The median age was 32 years, 39.3% were of Aboriginal ancestry, and 27.6% were migrants. After controlling for known confounders (e.g., age, Aboriginal ancestry, migrant status, childhood trauma, non-injection drug use), low relationship power was independently associated with 4.19 increased odds (95% CI: 1.93-9.10) and medium relationship power was associated 1.95 increased odds (95% CI: 0.89-4.25) of IPV. This analysis highlights how reduced control over sexual-decision making is plays a critical role in IPV among sex workers, and calls for innovation and inclusive programming tailored to sex workers and their non-commercial intimate partnerships.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".