Sex Trafficking of Women and Girls in Canada: A Scoping Review of the Scholarly Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex trafficking has been identified as a prominant health and human rights concern in Canada. However, there has been little empirical research on the topic and existing studies are largely found within the grey literature. This review sought to identify and summarize the current scholarly literature about sex trafficking of women and girls in Canada. We identified empirical studies using a keyword search in ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus. Eligible articles were published in English in 2000 or later, included a focus on women victim/survivors, and analyzed human/participant data. Only 14 studies met eligibility criteria. Most studies were qualitative, based on interviews or focus groups primarily with stakeholders, and set in the province of Ontario. Key findings highlighted challenges in conceptualizing sex trafficking centered largely around issues of coercion and consent. Pathways into trafficking (economic displacement, past abuse, and broken ties with family and community) and gaps and barriers in anti-trafficking responses (narrow or conflicting definitions, stigmatization and criminalization of sex work, and a lack of accessible or appropriate services) particularly impacted Indigenous, im/migrant, and other marginalized women and girls. There is a pausity of empirical studies on sex trafficking in Canada and this has implications for the development of data-driven policies and protocols. Further research should seek to highlight the voices of survivors and impacted communities and evaluate strengths and limitations of Canadian anti-trafficking interventions.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".