Delinking Prostitution from Trafficking: A Look at India's Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA) 1956 is the specialized legislation dealing with trafficking in India a country that receives supplies and transits numerous trafficked individuals. In spite of a few amendments to the legislation in 1986 it remains an ineffective and ideologically unsound piece of legislation to deal with trafficking. It suffers primarily from a lack of conceptual clarity on the issue of trafficking which has led to injustice being rendered to many trafficked victims. One of the main conceptual problems in the Act which will be discussed in this paper is the misplaced moralistic criminalization of prostitutes at the cost of dealing adequately with the issue of trafficking itself. It is extremely difficult to arrive at the number of individuals being trafficked in to or from India due to the secretive and sensitive nature of the subject. The U.S. has reported that the largest number of trafficked victims come from Asia with over 225000 victims each year from Southeast Asia and over 150000 from South Asia (Congressional Research Service). The United Nations (UN) reported in 2002 that up to 700000 children were trafficked in Asia each year and of them about 100000 in India (cited in Vetticattil and Krishnan). According to another report there are an estimated 2.3 million women in prostitution of which a quarter are minors. There are over 1000 red-light districts all over India where cage prostitutes are mostly minors often from Nepal and Bangladesh (CATW- Asia Pacific). (excerpt)
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".