Globalizin Sex &rkers ' Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les travaillewes du sexe etlesorganisations vouiesawcdroits des travailleuses du sexe et leur combat pour transformer le travaildu sexe en un travailplus digne, plus respectueux et dans des conditions plus dicentes. L huteure assure que ces coalitions qui se dessinent li l'intirieur des risistances quotidiennes des travailletlses du sexe apportent une autre dimension awc mouvementdesf.mmes etau fhinisme. Sex work across national boundaries is not new to the world. Donna Guy observes that "foreign prostitutes and pimps were already ensconced in Buenos Aires (Argentina) by 1860" and that between 1889 and 1901,75 per cent of the registered working women hailed from Europe and Rus-sia(14-16).Between1865and1885, around one quarter of the registered prostitutes in Bologna, Italy, were migrants, and during the 1 880s young British women worked in Belgium and other parts of Europe (Gibson; Walkowitz). In India, a number of European women worked as prosti-tutes in the latter part of the nine-teenth century, the majorityofwhom originated from Central and Eastern Europe, but also among them were
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.025 |
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".