Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine whether there is acceptance of a recent conceptualization of sex work as work and to establish what influences its acceptance as work. The term sex work refers to any income-generating activity involving the exchange of some form of sexual gratification for monetary reward (e.g., street prostitution, pornographic modeling or acting, etc.). Sociological theories on sex work have incorporated views of sex work as a deviant behavior or social problem while research has primarily examined attitudes toward its regulation. "Sex work as work" is an emerging conceptualization aimed at redefining work in the sex industry and awarding sex workers the same occupational rights as other workers. In view of current discussions on "sex work as work," this perspective was operationalized and examined to determine whether public opinions of sex work are shifting towards viewing it as work. In addition, the effects of social background characteristics (e.g., gender, race, social class, religion & religiosity, ethnicity), knowledge, values (e.g., attitudes toward feminism and conservative/liberal orientation), beliefs about reasons for women's entrance into sex work, experience, and preferred social distance from sex work on the acceptance of "sex work as work" were tested. Three hundred and fifty-eight students enrolled in first year sociology courses at the University of Windsor completed a self-administered survey. Bivariate associations and multivariate analyses revealed that "sex work as work" is not yet accepted and that preferred social distance from sex work and sex workers is the strongest influence on acceptance. Implications for future research are also discussed.Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2001 .D78. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-06, page: 1430. Adviser: Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2001.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".