MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281733716 · doi:10.22329/wyaj.v37i1.7280

Sex Workers and the Best Interests of their Children: Issues Faced by Sex Workers Involved in Custody and Access Legal Proceedings

2022· article· en· W4281733716 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julie E. DeWolf

Bibliographic record

VenueWindsor Yearbook of Access to Justice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Child custodySex workBest interestsFemale sexStigma (botany)Judicial opinionFamily lawSame sexPsychologyLawCriminologyPolitical scienceMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex worker parents often lose custody of their children. The purpose of this research was to study theimpact of a parent’s status as a past or present sex worker on judicial decision-making in custody and access disputes. Through doctrinal legal research, I explored judicial treatment of sex workers involved in custody and access disputes in Child Protection and Family Law case law from Ontario. I reviewed every reference to parental involvement in sex work from Child Protection and Family Law decisions from January 2010-March 2020. Parental involvement in sex work was often presented as an unfavourable aspect of the parent, or otherwise had a negative influence on their claim. Sex work was treated as a negative quality in a parent rather than an aspect of their life warranting further factual exploration. I argue that stigma against sex workers appears to carry more weight in custody and access disputes than evidence concerning the impact that a parent’s sex work has on a child.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWindsor Yearbook of Access to JusticeSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207