Prairie Vice: Reflecting on Robson’s Report of the Royal Commission on Charges Re Vice and of Graft Against the Police - A Winnipeg Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the foundational tenets undergirding Commissioner Robson’s Report of the Royal Commission on Charges Re Vice and of Graft Against the Police from 1911, we review the critiques from academics and activist groups in response to the Harper government-era legislation that endures to this day, espousing a new model for the criminalization of sex work. We contrast our findings with the conceptions of sex work contained in the Report using a Winnipeg-based sample. We share the results of our survey and reveal that our participants demonstrated multivalent and complex reactions to the legislative provisions of the scheme. Our findings show that participants held complex and divergent views regarding the individual provisions under the legislation and the attendant policy rationales. We also found a gendered variation in responses, with men generally being more supportive of the legalization of sex work than women. Importantly, many of the concepts and foundations that motivated Robson’s findings in his Report can still be seen as threads which run through the activist communities and in the responses to our survey.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".