Sexual safety practices of massage parlor-based sex workers and their clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Outreach and Research in Community Health Initiatives and Development (ORCHID) project examines social and structural factors that contribute to HIV/AIDS risk among women working in Vancouver's indoor sex industry and their clients. From 2006 to 2009, two mixed method studies were undertaken in ORCHID: one exploring experiences of women working in the indoor sex industry, mainly in massage parlors, and the other exploring experiences of men as sex "buyers." Both studies emphasize sexual health and safety, risk and protective behaviors, and related contextual factors. No analyses examining the sexual health and safety practices of massage parlor-based sex workers and clients exist in the Canadian context. To address this gap, we analyze two survey datasets - with 118 sex workers and 116 clients. Upon comparing demographics of sex workers and clients, we discuss their condom use and sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV testing practices. Sex workers and clients reported high rates of condom use for vaginal/anal intercourse. While both groups reported lower rates of condom use for oral sex during sex transactions, clients did so to a greater extent (p < 0.001). Condom use with noncommercial sex partners was reported to be less consistent by both groups. STI testing was higher among sex workers than clients (p < 0.001). Initiatives targeting clients of massage parlor-based sex workers for STI education and testing are needed. Future research should investigate how different types of relationships between sex workers and clients impact their sexual safety practices.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".