MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modern concepts of beauty

2003· review· en· W2095314328 on OpenAlexaff
Peter A. Adamson, Suzanne K. Doud Galli

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyAestheticsHumanityIntellectMedicineMythologyAdaptation (eye)Environmental ethicsEpistemologyArtPsychologyLiteraturePhilosophyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the beginning of humanity, man has sought to define beauty. Whether by philosophy, mathematical constructs, social studies, or biology, the fascination with and the study of beauty has consumed our emotions and intellect. Many myths about this powerful force in our daily lives have been created, and some continue to be believed. Recent studies are shaping a new reality of beauty, one founded on evolutionary and biologic findings that link our fascination with beauty to our reproductive success. Cosmetic surgery, itself, may be an ongoing part of our biologic adaptation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.278 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck SurgerySame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207