Evaluating the Usefulness of a Prostitution Diversion Project
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As social workers are increasingly collaborating with the criminal justice system through diversion programs to create and provide alternative approaches to working with legal offenders, practitioners and researchers must consider evaluating such projects. While there exist numerous prostitution diversion programs for both sex workers and clients of commercial sex workers, often referred to as ‘John Schools’, throughout the USA and Canada, there have been no published evaluations, until now, of any of the programs for commercial sex workers. This article presents the research methods and discussions concerning some of the study findings of a qualitative evaluation of Salt Lake City's Prostitution Diversion Project (PDP). This article explores the usefulness of the PDP by discussing the program's objectives, its strengths and limitations as perceived by the stakeholders. The author discusses how the various stakeholders perceived and experienced the PDP. Discussions in this article pay particular attention to the stakeholders’ experiences of working with and across significant theoretical and practical differences.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it