“O que é bello é para se ver, só o feio é immoral”: o processo disciplinador dos corpos de atrizes na mídia impressa nas últimas oito décadas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, much is said about feminine aesthetics, especially in media. There are many publications and television programs dedicated to this subject, in addition to reporting on celebrities which often discuss the (good or bad) physical form of celebrities. But does this concern is as recent as generally imagined? During a survey conducted in the archives of O Globo, we were faced with the special Um inquerito esthetico, published in 1926, which reproduced texts with derogatory remarks about the forms of the female actresses of the time. This article aims to identify the similarities between the imaginary on the woman’s body published in the series Um inquerito esthetico and in latest materials, mainly by Veja magazine, between 2007 and the first quarter of 2008. To better understand the issue of body and perform the desired analysis, we will use theoretical concepts such as body techniques from Marcel Mauss; the docile bodies, from Michel Foucault and the male domination, from Pierre Bourdieu.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".