MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388483189 · doi:10.1071/sh23157

Involvement in sex work is associated with muscle dysmorphia symptomatology among a sample of Canadian adolescents and young adults

2023· article· en· W4388483189 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kyle T. Ganson, Nelson Pang, Alexander Testa, Rachel F. Rodgers, Jori Jones, Jason M. Nagata

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)
FundersConnaught Fund
KeywordsMedicineYoung adultDemographyClinical psychologyPsychologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between lifetime sex work involvement and muscle dysmorphia symptomatology. METHODS: Data from the Canadian Study of Adolescent Health Behaviours (N =912) were analysed. Multiple adjusted linear regression models were estimated with lifetime sex work involvement as the independent variable and muscle dysmorphia symptomatology, measured using the Muscle Dysmorphic Disorder Inventory, as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Among the sample, 3.7% of participants reported engaging in lifetime sex work. Significant associations were found between self-reported lifetime sex work and greater total muscle dysmorphia symptomatology (B =5.03, 95% CI 1.80, 8.26), greater Drive for Size symptomatology (B =2.36, 95% CI 0.74-3.97), and greater Functional Impairment symptomatology (B =2.11, 95% CI 0.54, 3.67), while adjusting for relevant sociodemographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study expand prior research that has documented poor mental health among individuals involved in sex work. Clinical and community health professionals should consider screening for muscle dysmorphia symptomatology among young people who have been involved in sex work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual HealthSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207