Fears of an influx of sex workers to major sporting events are unfounded
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No evidence supports these recurrent moral panics Sensationalised public messaging and media reports raised alarms about the potential for a massive sex work boom, intensified people trafficking, and sexual exploitation in the lead up to the 2012 London Olympics Games.1 2 Fears of an influx of sex workers and increased demand for sex work during major sporting events are often raised in the context of increased public health risks for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, both in terms of risk for local sex workers and for tourists. This was also seen in the lead up to other Olympic (Canada) and FIFA World Cup events (South Africa, Germany), and such concerns continue to be replicated despite a lack of public health evidence to support them. Research that examined past events in Germany, South Africa, and Canada could not substantiate any of the myths about an increase in sex work and trafficking.3 The 2006 World Cup in Germany resulted in a negligible increase in sex workers, and concerns about trafficking were deemed groundless.4 No evidence of a mass influx of foreign sex workers advertising online and in local newspapers was seen during or after the …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".