Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures: Older Women's Perceptions and Experiences
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes findings from in-depth interviews with 44 women aged 50-70 regarding their perceptions of and experiences with non-surgical cosmetic procedures such as Botox injections, laser hair removal, chemical peels, microdermabrasion, and injectable fillers. While 21 of the women had used a range of non-surgical cosmetic procedures, 23 women had not. The data are discussed in light of feminist theorizing on cosmetic surgery which has tended to ignore the experiences of older women and has been divided in terms of the portrayal of cosmetic surgery as either oppressive or liberating. We found that some of the women used the procedures to increase their physical attractiveness and self-esteem, others viewed the procedures as excessively risky, and still others argued that the procedures stemmed from the social devaluation of later life. Treatments that involved the alteration of the surface of the body tended to be viewed as less risky than the injection of foreign substances into the body.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it