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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we provide a comparative analysis of qualitative, semistructured interviews with 24 women who had undergone different forms of cosmetic breast surgery (CBS). We argue that women must negotiate three types of risk: potential medical risks, lifestyle risks connected with choosing "frivolous" self-enhancements, and countervailing social risks affiliated with pressures to maximize one's feminine beauty. In addition, we highlight the challenges faced in negotiating these risks by examining the limits to traditional forms of medical informed consent provided to the women, who received little information on the medical risks associated with CBS, or who were given uncertain and contradictory risk information. Even respondents who felt that they were well informed expressed difficulties in making "wise" choices because the risks were distant or unlikely, and hence easily minimized. Given this, it is fairly understandable that the known social risks of "failed" beauty faced by the women often outweighed the ambiguous or understated risks outlined by medicine. We argue that traditional notions of informed consent and risk awareness might not be adequate for women choosing CBS.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it