MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116460651 · doi:10.1525/si.2004.27.3.309

To Die For: The Semiotic Seductive Power of the Tanned Body

2004· article· en· W2116460651 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

VenueSymbolic Interaction · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsEmbodied cognitionMeaning (existential)Sign (mathematics)AestheticsInterpretation (philosophy)Power (physics)Order (exchange)ArtPsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human skin burns with prolonged exposure to ultraviolet light. This simple physiological process acquires meaning through social interaction—whereby tanned skin assumes symbolic and semiotic properties. In this article we examine the meanings of tanned skin by focusing on the semiotic seductive power of the tanned body. Drawing from forty qualititative interviews, we examine the motives, beliefs, and experiences of people who tan their skin artificially, that is, through exposure to tanning lamps, in order to understand how tanned skin assumes meaning for them. We analyze the practice of artificial tanning and the interplay among processes of seduction, impression management, self‐expression, and the construction, exchange, and interpretation of embodied sign‐values.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.325 · 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