Older women and suntanning: the negotiation of health and appearance risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines older women's experiences and perceptions of sunbathing, sun avoidance, and suntanned appearances. Using data from in-depth interviews with 36 women aged 71 to 94, we elucidate the motivations behind the women's sunbathing practices. Specifically, we explore how the women responded to the health and appearance risks associated with exposure to and avoidance of ultraviolet radiation as well as extant feminine beauty norms. The majority of women put their experiences of sunbathing in an emergent historical context. Although most of the women suggested that suntanned appearances were indicative of health and beauty, sunbathers tended to downplay their health risks by distancing themselves from those they considered to be most at risk, namely tanning bed users and individuals who acquired overly dark suntans. Sunbathers also emphasised the benefits of sun exposure for adequate vitamin D absorption. In contrast, the women who did not suntan tended to have experienced negative health and appearance consequences from their past sunbathing practices. Thus, these women emphasised the importance of future health over immediate appearance dividends. We discuss our findings in relation to the extant research on suntanning and the literature pertaining to health, risk, and beauty work.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".