MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165013730 · doi:10.1177/1077801215569079

Exploring the Context of Trafficking and Adolescent Sex Industry Involvement in Tijuana, Mexico

2015· article· en· W2165013730 on OpenAlexafffund
Shira M. Goldenberg, Jay G. Silverman, David Engström, Ietza Bojórquez, Paula M. Usita, María Luisa Rolón, Steffanie A. Strathdee

Bibliographic record

VenueViolence Against Women · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsAIDS VancouverUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Coercion (linguistics)Sex workPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Poison controlSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthSexual coercionEnvironmental healthHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionPsychologyCriminologyMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychiatryComputer securityGeographyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coerced and adolescent sex industry involvement are linked to serious health and social consequences, including enhanced risk of HIV infection. Using ethnographic fieldwork, including interviews with 30 female sex workers with a history of coerced or adolescent sex industry involvement, we describe contextual factors influencing vulnerability to coerced and adolescent sex industry entry and their impacts on HIV risk and prevention. Early gender-based violence and economic vulnerability perpetuated vulnerability to coercion and adolescent sex exchange, while HIV risk mitigation capacities improved with increased age, control over working conditions, and experience. Structural interventions addressing gender-based violence, economic factors, and HIV prevention among all females who exchange sex are needed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueViolence Against WomenSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207