Sex Work and Canadian Policy: Recommendations for Labor Legitimacy and Social Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex workers are rarely considered expert consultants in policy development processes; instead, they often remain on the receiving end of harmful policy decisions. This article argues that sex workers’ narratives and analyses of their lives and work should be the driving force behind attempts to answer the following question: What social and policy changes are necessary to improve sex workers’ health, safety, and working conditions? As such, the findings from a narrative research study with sex workers (N = 10) from Toronto, Canada, have been analyzed to compile five key recommendations to achieve labor legitimacy and social change. They include: conceptualizing prostitution as a form of sexual labor; the inclusion of sex workers in policy-making efforts; decriminalization and the removal of the prostitution-related offenses from the Criminal Code; the implementation of sex worker-influenced workplace standards; and support for unionization and other forms of labor organizing.
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 | 0.041 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".