Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowing that I am a long-time sex worker and advocate for sex worker rights, people often tell me they would not want their daughter to work in the sex industry, and they ask me how I would feel if a daughter of mine decided to.My reply is that perhaps your daughter (or son) already is a sex worker and you just don't know it.And if so, do you want her to work in dangerous conditions and to be stigmatized and deprived of basic rights because you disagree with or are ashamed of her choice?Instead, I think you would want her to have a safe work environment with access to legal and labour protections, free from discrimination.Th is is what the sex worker rights movement has been fi ghting for.As one of the three plaintiff s in the constitutional challenge to Canada's prostitution laws in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott , I thought sex workers were getting close to realizing our human and labour rights when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in our favour on December 20, 2013 .Th e court eff ectively declared sex workers to be persons deserving of the same rights and protections as all other Canadians.But it was not to be; the problem was the timing.When we launched the challenge on March 20, 2007, we thought it would take the usual nine to ten years to wind its way through the three levels of courts.Instead, for reasons outside of our control, the case "raced" through in just under seven years.After the ruling, the federal Conservative government under Prime Minister Steven Harper had just enough time before the next election to play political
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.790 | 0.767 |
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".