Let’s Talk about Sex for Money: An Exploration of Economically Motivated Relationships Among Young, Black Women in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This paper, and the corresponding project, is motivated by the lack of qualitative research elucidating the voices of young Black women in Canada when it comes to their sexual health. Methodology/approach This paper draws from data produced in the Let’s Talk About Sex (LTAS) project – a Photovoice process held once a week for nine consecutive weeks in the Jane-Finch community, a low-income community in Toronto, Canada. This workshop was completed by 15 young African Caribbean and Black (ACB) women in the age group 14–18. These young women used photography and creative writing to express their opinions on the barriers and facilitators to making healthy sexual decisions. Findings A central finding was the existence of a subculture among youth in Toronto, where the exchange of sex for material resources was commonplace. Herein, we unpack the various forms of economically motivated relationships reported, which ranged from romantic relationships to sugar daddies and brothel-like sex dens. We also reflect on the discussions at community forums where the research findings were presented. From shock and outrage to a sly smile of knowing, the responses were often gendered, generational and reflective of a trend occurring across Toronto, not just in the Jane-Finch community, and not merely among the Black youth. Research implications Effective interventions and youth programs should focus on the sexually transmitted infection (STI) and HIV risks that may result from transactional relationships, economic empowerment, and youth employment. Originality/value This is a novel arts-based study on youth engaged inthe exchange of sex for money, which has nuanced differences from survival sex.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".