Number and Distribution of Gay Bathhouses in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although gay bathhouses have been the subject of debate and some public health policy for decades, the relative number and geographic distribution of these establishments has not been described. As a result, it is easy to miss or ignore them in making public policy in response to discase prevention. No straightforward methodology for such a description is available, so we used a series of gay travel books, first published in 1965 by the Damron Company, to estimate this distribution in the United States and Canada. Each of the annual guides published from 1968 to 1999 were reviewed for listings of bathhouses and sex clubs. The results suggest that bathhouses and other similar establishments exist in most states and provinces and in most large and many moderate-sized cities. Furthermore, the largest numbers of listings for bathhouses were in the same six cities across the decades, three in the U.S. and three in Canada. The greatest change in the number of listings was seen in the three U.S. cities where a public policy of closure was attempted. Nevertheless, the numbers of venues in these three cities have been increasing again since the early 1990s, although nothing near the numbers of listings in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".