Specialized supportive housing for young adult women engaging in street-based survival sex work: Is it needed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this major paper, the author sought to address what housing, program and service disparities exist and, in particular, whether there is adequate specialized supportive housing to meet the complex needs of young adult women ages 19 to 25 who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and who engage in survival sex work in Vancouver. The author also sought to determine what type of housing model is needed, if any, to facilitate housing stability and positive life changes (for example, improved life skills, self-care and self-confidence; greater access to education and/or vocational training; greater employment opportunities in non-precarious work sectors; and decreased substance use and/or mental health and trauma-related symptoms) for this subgroup of young adult women. A gap analysis was conducted to determine what housing and other program and service supports currently exist in Vancouver for young adult women engaging in survival sex work and what types of supportive housing models were available. After conducting a gap analysis and a literature review1, it was determined that young adult women ages 19 to 25 who are homeless or at risk to becoming homeless and who engage in street-based sex work are in need of specialized housing. This paper argues that a multidimensional housing model that is holistic, includes outreach, is women-centred, strength-based, trauma informed, and reflects a harm reduction approach is needed to improve housing stability and produce positive life changes as defined above. However, it was also noted that housing models that follow these guiding principles elsewhere have not yet been adequately evaluated; thus, further research is recommended to determine the validity of the proposed housing model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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 teacher head, 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".