Policy Alternatives: Improving sex worker occupational health and safety through legislative reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project examines potential policies to improve sex worker occupational health and safety in Canada.Purposive sampling was used to identify relevant case studies (i.e., Netherlands, Queensland, and Nevada) and expert interview participants (e.g., academics, sex worker support organizations, legal experts).Incorporating potential legal reforms in the area of criminal law, I explore the viability of current advertising provisions and their effects regarding off-street sex workers in the Canadian setting.I then provide answers to the following research questions: (1) how do support organizations, academics, and legal experts in Canada view current sex work advertising laws; and (2) are there alternatives to decriminalization, in the shorter term, that would garner stakeholder support?Findings highlight a deep-rooted resistance to the government's use of the law in trying to control the prevalence of sex work and stress the need for greater sex worker involvement in the creation of policies governing their work.
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 | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".