High-stakes Recordkeeping and Relationality: Conversations from the Sex Work Activist Histories Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sex Work Activist Histories Project (SWAHP) is an interdisciplinary research and recordkeeping initiative to record and disseminate the radical knowledges, activist expertise, and important social movement histories created by activists connected to the Canadian sex worker rights movement. This paper explores how stakeholders of SWAHP work together ethically, and maintain good relations with each other when engaging in what we call high-stakes recordkeeping. Our discussions consider both the divergences or differences between academic and non-academic project partners, our convergence or common ground, and the bridges we have built between academic and non-academic concerns and practices to establish and develop methodologies and practices that inform SWAHP’s ongoing collaborations and sex-work activist histories, archives, and related activisms. We consider how to be mutually accountable to our varied and complex analytical and affective positionalities in the specific context of working ethically and relationally in high-stakes recordkeeping. We conclude by considering the relevance of these lessons to other contexts of community-led archiving and research. This paper is a lightly edited transcript of the speaker notes from a 2021 CAIS/ACSI (Allard, Ferris, Lebovitch, Clamen, and Hughes, 2021) panel presentation. Project partners are identified individually in their article sections to share, highlight, and preserve what is unique about each project partners’ perspective and voice, and to make explicit how we work together.
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 | 0.032 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".