Female Sex Workers’ Perceptions of Front-line Police Officer’s Ability to Ensure Their Safety in St. John's, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of stigma and discrimination on sex workers’ perceptions of safety is not well documented outside of Canada’s three largest provinces—Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. This qualitative preliminary study examines sex workers’ perceptions of front-line police officer’s ability to ensure their safety. This research draws on four semi-structured in-depth interviews with female-identifying sex workers in X. Guided by an anti-oppressive social justice framework, our thematic analysis of the interviews identified three major findings. First, police and public stigma impacted sex workers’ ability to work safely, to interact with law enforcement, and to combat the interpersonal violence committed against them. Second, the need for alternative means of safety outside of police protection was expressed. Specifically, sex workers often depended on personal safety plans and the help and support of other sex workers to reduce their risk and exposure to violence. Third, existing provincial and federal legislation impacted sex workers’ ability to remain safe at work. Findings suggest the need for ongoing research to understand the challenges and barriers to sex workers’ safety, so that they can be addressed through evidence-informed, stigma reduction strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".