Exploring Audience Engagement and Critical Narrative Intervention With the Celling Sex Film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young women who trade sex experience high rates of stigma that exacerbate existing health inequities. The products of participatory visual methodologies show promising potential for challenging stigma. In total, 15 young women who trade sex created individual brief videos to share their experiences. Following a participatory analysis, the videos were edited into one composite movie to highlight key messages. Eight facilitated screenings (cohosted by participant filmmakers and research team members) were organized with diverse community and health organizations. Audiences were led through a series of interactive writing, drawing, viewing, and discussion activities. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and inductively analyzed to assess the impacts of the film on audiences. Audience reactions were categorized into four overarching themes to describe main impacts: consciousness raising, commitments to practice and organizational change, effectiveness of the approach, and limitations. Audience responses demonstrated that facilitated screenings can challenge harmful stereotypes and help viewers consider pathways to enact positive change in their personal and professional lives. However, changing deep-rooted patterns of stigma takes time, dedication, and accountability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".