Sex work and three dimensions of self-esteem: self-worth, authenticity and self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex work is assumed to have a negative effect on self-esteem, nearly exclusively expressed as low self-worth, due to its social unacceptability and despite the diversity of persons, positions and roles within the sex industry. In this study, we asked a heterogeneous sample of 218 Canadian sex workers delivering services in various venues about how their work affected their sense of self. Using thematic analysis based on a three-dimensional conception of self-esteem - self-worth (viewing oneself in a favourable light), authenticity (being one's true self) and self-efficacy (competency) - we shed light on the relationship between involvement in sex work and self-esteem. Findings demonstrate that the relationship between sex work and self-esteem is complex: the majority of participants discussed multiple dimensions of self-esteem and often spoke of how sex work had both positive and negative effects on their sense of self. Social background factors, work location and life events and experiences also had an effect on self-esteem. Future research should take a more complex approach to understanding these issues by considering elements beyond self-worth, such as authenticity and self-efficacy, and examining how sex workers' backgrounds and individual motivations intersect with these three dimensions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".