MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969985336 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13562

The Labour of Paying for Education: An Exploration of Student Sex Work in Canada

2019· dissertation· en· W2969985336 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Hammond

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex workWork (physics)Context (archaeology)Sex workersQualitative researchPublic relationsPopulationPedagogySociologyPsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceEngineeringResearch methodologySocial scienceMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis contributes to a small body of research that examines student sex work in aCanadian context.By drawing on data gathered from semi-structured qualitative interviews with ten student sex workers, this thesis seeks to gain a nuanced understanding of students' experiences with sex work in Canada, and their use of university support services.Specifically, this study explores student sex workers' motivations for entering the sex industry, the benefits and challenges that they have encountered while working, whether they are accessing university support services and if and how they would benefit from the implementation of targeted support services in post-secondary institutions.The findings reveal that student sex workers in Canada have a variety of reasons for entering the sex industry, among which financial incentives, psychological benefits and flexibility appear to be paramount.Further, this research makes it evident that while student sex workers do have unique concerns that dissuade them from accessing university support services, many of their concerns reflect issues affecting all postsecondary students.In order to fill the gaps in existing service provision, this research seeks to provide suggestions as to how services could be implemented and adapted to better meet the needs of the student sex-working population.To my outstanding committee -Professor Ummni Khan and Professor Lara Karaian, thank you.Ummni, my internal examiner, thank you for your invaluable suggestions and edits.You have offered insightful advice throughout the duration of this project.Lara, my external examiner, I am grateful for your time, efforts, and the many important and productive critiques you have offered

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0380.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207