MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054866755 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-950173

The Beauty Mystique

2006· article· fr· W2054866755 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

VenueFacial Plastic Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyMythologyAestheticsValue (mathematics)MedicineArtLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical beauty is symbolic, and a highly valued and powerful attribute, of the self. Yet it is also controversial--its value negated as a myth by many proverbs, religious authorities, and feminists alike. Here we explore some of the practices of beauty, from beauty competitions to cosmetic surgery, and also some of the thinking about beauty from Homer and Plato through Darwin and Freud to PEOPLE magazine. The beauty mystique, defined here as the widespread equation of beauty with goodness, together with other virtues imputed to beauty, has the reverse application to ugliness. Both processes are evident in our literature, media, popular culture, and our attitudes and behaviors; both are applied primarily to the face--the principal locus of both beauty and character. The mystique and the myth have their value and their limits.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.186 · 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