MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The female sex work typology in India in the context of HIV/AIDS

2009· review· en· W1988178154 on OpenAlexaff
Raluca Buzdugan, Shiva S. Halli, Frances M. Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueTropical Medicine & International Health · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyContext (archaeology)Sex workWork (physics)SociologyMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GeographyEngineeringFamily medicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a critical review of the typology of female sex work in India. METHOD: Published and unpublished studies (1986-2008) were identified through electronic databases, hand searching and contacting experts. RESULTS: The review assesses the appropriateness of the existing typologies from a programmatic perspective and identifies their strengths and limitations. It indicates there is conceptual confusion around the typology and that none of the existing typologies are exhaustive, in that none includes all types of sex work documented in India. The typology developed by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) is the most comprehensive. The typology is based on the primary place of solicitation and categorizes female sex workers (FSWs) as brothel-based, street-based, home-based, lodge-based, dhaba-based and highway-based FSWs. However, this typology has its limitations. First, it does not include all categories of FSWs documented in the literature, such as indirect-primary (primarily solicit clients at their places of work, which are venues where facilitating sex work is their main purpose e.g. massage parlours, bars), indirect-secondary (primarily solicit clients at their places of work, which are in non-sex work related industries e.g. agriculture, construction) and phone-based FSWs (primarily solicit clients through phones). Second, the methodology used to develop the typology proposed by NACO or by any other researchers is not explicit. In addition, the extent to which the typology captures the HIV risk variability between FSWs types is not explored. CONCLUSION: There is a need to develop an evidence-based, inclusive typology which takes account of HIV risk for researchers and programmers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.381 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTropical Medicine & International HealthSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207