MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473131499

Legal Network report calls for decriminalization of prostitution in Canada.

2005· article· en· W2473131499 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glenn Betteridge

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsHIV Legal Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecriminalizationSex workPolitical scienceHuman rightsSex workersLaw enforcementCriminologyLawCriminal lawEnforcementCriminal codeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)SociologyPopulationMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 2005 the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network released Sex, work, rights: reforming Canadian criminal laws on prostitution. The report examines the ways in which the prostitution-related provisions of the Criminal Code, and their enforcement, have criminalized many aspects of sex workers' lives and have promoted their social marginalization. Evidence indicates that the criminal law has contributed to health and safety risks, including the risk of HIV infection, faced by sex workers. The Legal Network calls for the decriminalization of prostitution in Canada, and for other legal and policy reforms that respect the human rights and promote the health of sex workers. Despite the report's Canadian focus, its human rights analysis is relevant to the situation of sex workers in other countries where prostitution is illegal and sex workers face rights abuses. In this article, Glenn Betteridge, the principal author of the report, briefly sets out the case for law reform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207