Intimate relationships and women involved in the sex trade: perceptions and experiences of inclusion and exclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a qualitative study exploring the intimate (non-work) relationships of women involved in the sex trade. Women working in the sex industry and intimate partners of women in the industry were interviewed in order to understand how intimate relationships are perceived as influencing the women's general health and well-being. The research suggests that intimate relationships can, and do, provide a space for feelings of inclusion and safety that are perceived as positive forces in women's general health and well-being. At the same time, however, feelings and experiences of exclusion (fuelled by the dominant stigmatizing discourse related to prostitution) can enter into intimate relationships, and are perceived as having a negative impact on the women's well-being, particularly their emotional health. Although there are attempts to keep the women's work separate from the intimate relationship, cross-over between the two spheres does occur. The research suggests that health care and service providers need to look beyond the women's working lives, and understand the relationships between work and home, as well as the ways in which intimate relationships can influence women's lives and health through both positive and negative forces.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".