Indigenous Sex Workers and Canadian Outreach Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous sex workers are subjected to the normalization of colonial violence. This colonial violence is perpetuated through the intervention of state actors stripping their agency through state law. Outreach programs in Canada are vital resources in ensuring that Indigenous sex workers are provided with a safe working environment through a human rights framework and occupational safety precautions. How outreach programs resist or invoke Bill C-36 or the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA) is crucial in discovering whether or not they create a safe environment for Indigenous sex workers. In this article, the outreach programs Safe Harbour Outreach Project (SHOP), Maggie’s Toronto, Hope Restored Canada, PACE Society, and Exit Doors Here will be researched. Moreover, their connection to state law will be reviewed from an Indigenous feminist lens to discover whether or not they work from a decolonial framework or invoke state control over Indigenous sex workers. The following questions are to be asked of the outreach programs, are they positioned as prohibitionists or are they aiming for sex work decriminalization? Do they have culturally specific programs in place? Do they respect and support the voices of Indigenous sex workers? And lastly, are there any barriers in place which can limit access to these programs? This article is premised on providing vital information in terms of how outreach programs can improve their relations with Indigenous sex workers from an Indigenous feminist perspective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".