Designing an Architecture of Labour Affirmation, Harm Reduction and Community Development for Vancouver's Sex Worker Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the current political, social, and legal landscape of Canada, sex workers face a considerable number of barriers to labour recognition that would afford them labour rights, dignity, and safety. The refusal to accept this labour as legitimate work augments the precarity of sex work; when it is treated as inherently criminogenic and exploitative, it is pushed into sociospatial zones that breed crime and exploitation in a cycle that reinforces the “common sense” knowledge that is responsible for marginalizing this community. One critical factor in this reproduction of precarity is the nonexistence of a place of indoor sex work created with the input of sex workers. How can rethinking the architectural design process to emphasize the expert knowledge of sex workers create a new commercial typology of adult entertainment that prioritizes health, safety, and dignity for sex workers? Sex workers themselves have speculated about a new typology of commercial sex workplaces for decades but have lacked the cooperation with a designer who could feasibly produce this as an architectural project through drawings, models, and renderings. My work uses a participatory methodology to generate architectural design as a diagram for “sex industry best practice” knowledge to provided context for, and disseminate, information that exists within expert communities but has not become mainstream due to the social and political challenges sex workers face today.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".