MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018907730 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800001744

Beauty in Later Life: Older Women's Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness

2002· article· en· W2018907730 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyPhysical attractivenessAttractivenessEmbodied cognitionHonourPreferencePerceptionAestheticsPsychologySocial psychologyHuman physical appearanceGender studiesSociologyArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Using data from 96 hours of semi-structured interviews with women aged 61 to 92, this paper explores the meanings that older women attribute to beauty and aging. The women in my study tend to equate physical attractiveness with youthfulness and slimness. However, they reject the extremes of thinness embodied in today's fashion models and actresses. Even as they disparage obese individuals, the women argue that thin older women appear scrawny. The women express a preference for more rounded female bodies than current beauty standards allow and emphasize the importance of inner beauty. While some women view their wrinkles negatively, others suggest that their facial creases are badges of honour. I argue that older women do not simply internalize beauty ideals to the detriment of their sense of self. Rather, older women resist and challenge current ideals of feminine attractiveness and suggest alternative beauty ideals and definitions of personal desirability.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.190 · 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