Community-based HIV prevention research among substance-using women in survival sex work: The Maka Project Partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substance-using women who exchange sex for money, drugs or shelter as a means of basic subsistence (ie. survival sex) have remained largely at the periphery of HIV and harm reduction policies and services across Canadian cities. This is notwithstanding global evidence of the multiple harms faced by this population, including high rates of violence and poverty, and enhanced vulnerabilities to HIV transmission among women who smoke or inject drugs. In response, a participatory-action research project was developed in partnership with a local sex work agency to examine the HIV-related vulnerabilities, barriers to accessing care, and impact of current prevention and harm reduction strategies among women in survival sex work. This paper provides a brief background of the health and drug-related harms among substance-using women in survival sex work, and outlines the development and methodology of a community-based HIV prevention research project partnership. In doing so, we discuss some of the strengths and challenges of community-based HIV prevention research, as well as some key ethical considerations, in the context of street-level sex work in an urban setting.
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 | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".