Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Subjective well being among female sex workers is less explored and only few studies talked about this complex issue. Aim: To study the subjective well being of female sex workers. Method: Based on the informed consent, seventy female sex workers were randomly selected from the study population. The PGI — General Well Being scale (Verma et al., 1983) and a semi structured socio demographic schedule were used to collect the data. Results: Major findings of the study were that half of the female sex workers fall under the age group of 27 to 36, having studied up to high school (50%), majority (90%) of them being married and were using one or other substance (72.9%). Their perception of subjective well being shows that 38.6% had good positive mental health, 35.7% had moderate mental health and about one quarter (25.7%) of the respondents had low positive mental health. High subjective well being among Pre University Course (PUC) and above educated female sex workers (M=16.88, ±4.52) was noted, whereas less was noted among the group of illiterate female sex workers (M=8.96, ±5.53). Conclusion: There is a need to address female sex workers issues beyond HIV/AIDS. The current findings open up the need for appropriate interventions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".