MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W136461797

How We See Ourselves : The Beauty Makeup of the Black Canadian Woman

2010· dissertation· en· W136461797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan-Blanche Chato

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyAestheticsArtArt historyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of beauty is a prime value in North American culture yet the feminine beauty ideal has conventionally been associated with the White population, causing a dichotomy of norms between Whites and non-Whites.This thesis reviews the historical and contextual nature of beauty amongst women of African descent and the Diaspora in the works of Patricia Hill Collins, bell hooks, Malcolm X, W.E.B DuBois and many others on such topics as skin color, hair texture, health, body image and racism.To determine the continuing salience of these issues in the lives of Black women, I interviewed and surveyed ten second generation African (Black) Canadians.The qualitative data is rich but the most striking finding is that the women do not express the dichotomy between Black and White aesthetics as strongly as the American and British data would suggest.The intersubjective nature of the Black Canadian female experience highlighted a fragmented awareness of interracial and intraracial discrimination that shaped their self-identity and position in society, additionally their definition of beauty, valuing internal qualities such as intelligence and undervaluing qualities related to physical appearance.The interview data indicated that there was minimal racialization of attitudes on health and body aesthetics, and minimal emphasis on Afrocentric traits.Discussions on phenotypes like hair texture and skin color demonstrated the confusion that exists in rationalizing the use of racialized terminology.The majority of respondents indicated mild concerns over their body based on the Body Shape Questionnaire and healthy self-esteem on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.Their voices were the motivating force in completing this project and they have enlightened me to the new possibilities linked to this subject matter more than they will ever know.A special thanks to my father, Dr. Martin Chato for his patience editing the drafts and his sound input.Also, thanks extend to Dr. Roger MacLean for his foresight, optimism and reassurance over the course of this project.My heartfelt appreciation and love goes out to those whose support and compassion over this period of time was a blessing.They prayed and -stood in the gap

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicArchitecture, Design, and Social HistoryFrench-language works237,207