Mapping Workplace Neighborhood Mobility Among Sex Workers in an Urban Canadian Setting: Results of a Community-Based Spatial Epidemiological Study From 2010-2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobility among sex workers has been linked not only to improved economic and social opportunities, but also to concerns regarding displacement, criminalization, and violence. In 2014, new “end-demand” legislation criminalized new aspects of sex work in Canada (e.g., third-party advertising, purchasing) while leaving the sale of sex legal. Utilizing data from a longitudinal community-based cohort of women sex workers in Metro Vancouver (An Evaluation of Sex Workers Health Access [AESHA], 2010-2016), we used kernel density mapping to understand and identify geographic patterns of workplace neighborhood mobility (i.e., changing the primary neighborhood in which one worked in the last 6 months); multivariable logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was also used to model contextual (policing, violence, and safety) and individual correlates of workplace mobility among sex workers over the 6-year period, including potential changes in mobility patterns pre- and post-end-demand criminalization. A total of 543 sex workers were included in analyses, contributing 2,199 observations. A total of 402 (74.0%) experienced workplace neighborhood mobility during the study period. Neighborhood mobility was negatively correlated with age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.98/year older, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.97, 0.99]) and positively correlated with homelessness (AOR = 1.43, 95% CI = [1.12, 1.82]), identifying as a gender/sexual minority (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI = [1.04, 1.70]), and servicing clients primarily outdoors (vs. informal indoor or in-call venues; AOR = 1.48, 95% CI = [1.21, 1.81]); police harassment (AOR = 1.19, 95% CI = [0.96, 1.48], p = .11) and changing one’s neighborhood of work due to safety concerns (AOR = 1.37, 95% CI = [0.94, 2.00], p = .09) were both marginally correlated. Steps to promote safer working conditions for marginalized women in urban environments remain urgently needed, including shifts away from criminalized enforcement toward community-led initiatives and promoting access to safer indoor workspaces.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".