The Right to Remain Silent: Prostitution in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No profession is perhaps as widely debated as that of prostitution. Particularly within feminism, there appears the division between those who see the sex trade as women objectified into a commodity and those who see a legitimate practice, the right to which is being ignored. Within Canada, the laws mostly prohibit the communication of a transaction as well as forbidding bawdy houses and living of the avails of a prostitute. Amongst this debate and the relevant laws, there are several assumptions made. The largest of which is the assumption that there is a victim. There is no denying that victimization does occur, but under what circumstances and by who? What do the women working in the sex trade say? There is a large amount of variation of the working conditions within this trade as well as variation within law enforcement as to how the laws are applied. In addition, sex trade workers face severe stigma which prevents the larger public from being accurately aware of what this work is truly like. These factors are consistently interacting to produce unique circumstances and marginalization within every aspect of the worker’s life. Only by including these voices will the law be able to truly reflect the unique needs of the industry and offer protection against the victimization that occurs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".