MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394685350 · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s448037

Recommendations to Improve Services and Supports for Domestically Sex Trafficked Persons Derived from the Insights of Health Care Providers

2024· article· en· W4394685350 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janice Du Mont, Frances Montemurro, Rhonelle Bruder, Christine Kelly, Frances Recknor, Robín Masón

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService providerHealth careNursingBusinessService (business)Health servicesMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceMarketingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care providers are highly likely to encounter persons who have been domestically sex trafficked and, therefore, possess valuable insights that could be useful in understanding and improving existing services and supports. In-depth interviews were conducted with 31 health care providers residing and working in Canada's largest province, Ontario. Results were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's analytical framework. Across providers, a key theme was identified: "Facilitators to improve care", which was comprised of two sub-themes, "Address needs in service provision" and "Center unique needs of survivors". From these results, eight wide-ranging recommendations to improve services and supports were developed (eg, Jointly mobilize an intersectoral, collaborative, and coordinated approach to sex trafficking service provision; Employ a survivor-driven approach to designing and delivering sex trafficking services). These recommendations hold the potential to enhance services in Canada and beyond by reducing barriers to access and care, facilitating disclosure, aiding in recovery, and empowering those who have been domestically sex trafficked.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multidisciplinary HealthcareSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207