MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968460338 · doi:10.1002/eat.20086

Anthropomorphic characteristics of centerfold models: Trends towards slender figures over time

2005· article· en· W1968460338 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Seifert

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaistBody mass indexDemographyRegression analysisPsychologyStatisticsIndex (typography)MathematicsMedicineSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Anthropomorphic characteristics of centerfold models were analyzed to determine if there has been a trend towards slimmer models over the last 50 years. METHOD: Height and weight, breast, waist, and hip measurements of 559 Playboy centerfold models, obtained from the magazine's website, were analyzed. RESULTS: Regression analyses indicated a gradual and subtle change towards slimness. A latent class analysis yielded five basic types of figures and results indicated that the prevalence of the type of figures being depicted changed over time, with a slightly thinner figure being more common. However, really thin figures were rare until the 2000s and the probability of a model having a body mass index (BMI) < 17 was greater in the 1950s than in the 2000s. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that there has been a trend towards slimness, but that the changes have been gradual.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207