Differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women engaged in street prostitution in Sudbury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study identifies differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women engaged in \nstreet prostitution in Sudbury, Ontario using an Indigenous Research Paradigm. A sample of \ntwelve women engaged in street prostitution were interviewed using the Prostitution \nQuestionnaire developed by Dr. Melissa Farley of Prostitution Research & Education. \nAdditional questions of regional and cultural relevance were added. A comparison group of nine \nmarginalized women without experience in prostitution was also interviewed with an abbreviated \ninterview tool. The results indicated that Aboriginal women engaged in street prostitution \ndiffered from non-Aboriginal women in the following areas: stronger desire for the legalization \nof prostitution, more experience with discrimination, more physical assaults, higher alcohol \nconsumption, more criticism from others about alcohol consumption, stronger desire to reduce \nalcohol consumption, more prolonged substance use, stronger desire for treatment of substance use, family with residential school experience, more interest in deepening cultural connections, \nmore active within their faith, greater contact with family and more trusting relationships. Like \nAboriginal women engaged in prostitution, Aboriginal women with hardships differed from non- \nAboriginal women with hardships in their family experience with residential schools, in being \nmore active within their faith and having greater contact with family. Furthermore, Aboriginal \nwomen with hardships also had more family and friends living in a First Nations community, had \nlived in a First Nations community at some point and had more knowledge of Aboriginal \nteachings. Additional results outside of identified differences were also included to help define \nthe local populations. The findings, in relation to Aboriginal women engaged in street \nprostitution, are discussed within the context of historical antecedents, community development \nand political policies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".