MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997298385 · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12201

Stigma, sex work, and substance use: a comparative analysis

2015· article· en· W1997298385 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStigma (botany)Sex workPsychologySubstance useSocial psychologySocial stigmaClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stigma is a widely used concept in social science research and an extensive literature claims that stigmatisation contributes to numerous negative health outcomes. However, few studies compare groups that vary in the extent to which they are stigmatised and even fewer studies examine stigma's independent and mediating effects. This article addresses these gaps in a comparative study of perceived stigma and drug use among three low-income feminised service occupations: sex work, food and alcoholic beverage serving, and barbering and hairstyling. An analysis of longitudinal data shows positive associations between sex work, perceived stigma, and socially less acceptable drug use (for example, heroin and cocaine), and that stigma mediates part of the link between sex work and the use of these drugs. Our overall findings suggest that perceived stigma is pronounced among those who work in the sex industry and negatively affects health independently of sex work involvement.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.294 · 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