“There is no other option; we have to feed our families…who else would do it?”: The Financial Lives of Women Engaging in Sex Work in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This article provides an overview of the financial lives of women (n = 204) engaging in sex work in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. METHODS: This paper presents findings from a computer-based, interviewer-administered baseline assessment administered with women recruited for participation in a randomized controlled trial testing the feasibility of a combined HIV risk reduction and savings-led microfinance intervention for women engaging in sex work in Mongolia. FINDINGS: Findings demonstrate that most women are the primary financial providers for their households, using an array of earning strategies to provide for themselves and other dependents, with sex work often constituting the primary household income source. Financial instability in the lives of people engaging in sex work may increase their risk for HIV and STIs due to a compromised ability to negotiate safer sex with partners in times of economic crisis or need. High levels of financial responsibility for household welfare, when combined with low reported savings, the presence of debt, higher premiums offered for sex without a condom, and high levels of harmful alcohol use, may heighten women's risk for HIV and other STIs. CONCLUSION: Further research that documents the financial lives of people working in sex work is needed in order to understand the complex relationship between financial stability and engagement in sex work, and to inform the development and testing of structural HIV prevention interventions which target the economic determinants of risk. These findings highlight the importance of economic support programming for women engaged in sex work in Mongolia at a time of rapid economic change in Mongolia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".