MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058202073 · doi:10.1177/0002716214521995

Coercion, Control, and Cooperation in a Prostitution Ring

2014· article· en· W2058202073 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoercion (linguistics)Sex traffickingCriminologyKey (lock)Power (physics)NarrativeControl (management)Computer securitySociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceHuman trafficking

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coercion and control are key components of the dominant narrative on sex trafficking, but the power and exchange relations between some of the key players in trafficking have not been carefully examined. This study is based on electronic surveillance data from a two-year police investigation of a prostitution network in Montreal. All of the prostitutes in the network had initially been recruited when they were minors. Whereas most of the writing on sex trafficking portrays pimps as being involved in highly exploitative and coercive relationships with prostitutes, we found that control was not always the sole purview of the pimps, that prostitutes often held key positions and privileged roles within the network, and that pimps’ and prostitutes’ relationships involved complex exchanges of network resources.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.344 · 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