MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048501844 · doi:10.1177/0950017020936872

The Relative Quality of Sex Work

2020· article· en· W3048501844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork Employment and Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecarityDisadvantageSex workContext (archaeology)Work (physics)CapitalismPrecarious workIndustrial sociologySociologyDemographic economicsQuality (philosophy)Political scienceGender studiesEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents descriptive findings on sex workers’ structural disadvantage and their evaluation of the quality of their work, relative to their other jobs. In-person interviews were conducted in 2013 with sex workers ( n = 218) from Canada. Participants reported they experience precarity (i.e. uncertainty and instability) in employment and other domains of their lives. Compared to the work quality of their other jobs, the majority said sex work was more satisfying and granted greater control and money. In a context of low income and instability in employment, participants make strategic choices to engage in sex work, even when contending with its low social status. The article concludes that sex work should be recognized as valuable work for Canadian sex workers, given the circumstances of their lives under contemporary capitalism. The findings indicate a need for macro-level changes to challenge precarity in the economy and other societal institutions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.282 · 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