The needs and preferences of Eastern Canadian sex workers in mitigating occupational health and safety risks through the use of Information and Communication Technologies: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex workers may use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as a means to mitigate occupational health and safety (OHS) risks by exchanging harm reduction techniques (e.g., screening) on blogs and social media. ICTs can also assist sex workers in creating online communities, where community members can act as each other's safety check-ins, an additional harm reduction technique. In Canada, there is a paucity of research around ICT usage by sex workers for managing occupational health and safety. The objective of this study was to qualitatively examine the needs and preferences of Canadian sex workers when using ICTs in the delivery of strategies for occupational health and safety. Using a theoretical framework derived from a Social Ecological Model perspective, semi-structured interviews were conducted via phone, with a mixed gender sample (N = 22) of sex workers, between April and July 2020. OHS risks were found to be related to structural determinants, client behaviours, and lack of experience and knowledge when newly entering sex work. Participant accounts revealed a socially cohesive online community; however, sex workers reported difficulties in finding these communities, particularly when entering sex work. Such barriers to supportive communities were attributed to the criminalized, hidden nature of sex work that resulted in the fragmentation of harm reduction techniques across several online platforms, such as blogs, YouTube videos, closed electronic chat groups, and open online sex worker supportive communities. Moreover, these platforms and/or their content could potentially disappear without warning, either due to the platform provider seeking to evade possible prosecution, or because new legislation was introduced banning such content. Recommendations for further research include the co-design with sex workers of an innovative, secure, easily accessible, sex worker-only ICT OHS tool, utilizing a web hosting service located in a country where sex work has been either legalized or decriminalized.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".