Structure and agency: reflections from an exploratory study of Vancouver indoor sex workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex work research continues to be characterised by debates around decriminalization. Central to these debates are claims about the agency of those involved in the sex trade. Some researchers argue that individuals involved in the sex trade are victims of structural and interpersonal constraint, whilst others depict them as workers exercising choice. Drawing on structure-agency theory, a review of legal and media accounts of the sex trade and qualitative interviews with 21 indoor sex workers in Vancouver, Canada, we argue that both of these perspectives are insufficient. Rather than reducing the sex trade to part of a binary, we suggest that it is necessary to analyse sex work through the complex interplay of both structure and agency. Specifically, structural analyses undercover the numerous ways that sex workers are controlled, observed and influenced whilst agency perspectives elicit the means that sex workers continue to exercise control in spite of disadvantage. While we do not finalise decriminalisation debates, we do critique current Canadian laws for the lack of responsiveness to the lives of sex workers and their exploitative and contradictory stance on sex work.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".