Influences on Decision-Making for Undergoing Plastic Surgery: A Mental Models and Quantitative Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research was conducted to gain insight into potential clients' decisions to undergo plastic surgery, their perception of benefits and risks, their judgment of outcomes, and their selection of a plastic surgeon. METHODS: Semistructured, open-ended interviews were conducted with 60 people who expressed interest in plastic surgery. Qualitative analysis revealed their "mental models" regarding influences on their decision to undergo plastic surgery and their choice of a surgeon. Interview results were used to design a Web-based survey in which 644 individuals considering plastic surgery responded. RESULTS: The desire for change was the most direct motivator to undergo plastic surgery. Improvements to physical well-being were related to emotional and social benefits. When prompted about risks, participants mentioned physical, emotional, and social risks. Surgeon selection was a critical influence on decisions to undergo plastic surgery. Participants gave considerable weight to personal consultation and believed that finding the "right" plastic surgeon would minimize potential risks. Findings from the Web-based survey were similar to the mental models interviews in terms of benefit ratings but differed in risk ratings and surgeon selection criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The mental models interviews revealed that interview participants were thoughtful about their decision to undergo plastic surgery and focused on finding the right plastic surgeon.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".