"It Is Important for Everyone as Humans to Feel Important, Right?" Findings from a Community-Based Participatory Needs Assessment with Street-Level Sex Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A community-based participatory research design informed the development and conduct of a needs assessment with street-level sex workers within a mid-sized city in Ontario, Canada. The research question was: What would help street-level sex workers to live with enhanced safety and dignity within their community? Twenty-four women who accessed a peer-driven drop-in center (SafeSpace) participated in in-depth interviews. Observational data of items requested by women who accessed SafeSpace were also documented over a 6-month time period. The overarching theme of relationships was identified as vital to participants' ability to live and work with enhanced safety and dignity in their community. Subthemes included: Informal/formal surveillance: Relationships to public space(s); Nowhere to go for us: Relationships with/in community services; and You're given the time you need: Relationships in a peer-driven drop-in center for/with/by sex workers. Our findings demonstrate how central relationships are, particularly peer, to enhancing or diminishing sex workers' sense of dignity, self-worth, safety, and enhanced their access to services.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".