Bibliographic record
Abstract
How significant is the role of family and kinship ties to a womans entry into the sex trade? Is trafficking of women to this end largely the handiwork of unscrupulous third parties unknown to the women and their families? Are the latter generally unwilling and unwitting victims? Or does the kinship network of women have a more prominent role in this respect than is generally acknowledged? In the Indian context if not the south and south-east Asian region as a whole there is a need to examine critically the role relatives and families play in womens engagement in sex work. In this article I will argue that policy makers researchers and NGOs working in this area maintain a studied blindness towards the possibility that the family is often at the bottom of womens entry into sex work. While the role of the family in womens well-being or otherwise is both culturally accepted and well documented by feminist scholars the idea that a large mass of women can enter the sex trade while their families remain innocent bystanders has not been seriously questioned. (excerpt)
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.069 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".