Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the social organization of ‘helping sex workers’ in Northeastern Ontario from the standpoint of sex workers or former sex workers. It is based on twelve (12) qualitative interviews with sex workers and former sex workers between the years 2002-2003. This thesis engages the feminist research framework as developed by Dorothy E Smith, a feminist sociologist. Smiths’ ontological and epistemological framework conceptualizes knowledge as socially produced and mediated by social/power relations. This is a theoretical framework that has the potential to explore the social standpoint of persons labeled ‘sex worker’ by examining social/power relations from their standpoint and by problematizing claims of the universality of knowledge and ‘truth’. Overwhelmingly sex workers identified ‘help’ as a series of stigmatizing processes that were triggered upon the ‘moment of identification’ of being a sex worker. These series of stigmatizing processes were embedded in social courses of action undertaken by social service agencies and the police. This is important research as claims to ‘helping’ sex workers by social service agencies and the subsequent social relations this creates for sex workers are rarely examined in Canada from the standpoint of sex workers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".