Colonial Complexions and Cosmetics: The Beauty of New Zealand Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Leisure and Pleasure: Reshaping and Revealing the New Zealand Body 1900-1960 (2003), Caroline Daley acknowledges the rise of the body beautiful in New Zealand culture and argues that “as muscles and strength were to men, so, increasingly was beauty of face and form to women” (85). Recent years have witnessed the examination of the New Zealand body within the context of physical health and sport in a number of critical studies including Charlotte Macdonald’s Strong, Beautiful and Modern: National Fitness in Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, 1935-1960 (2011). Such histories of twentieth-century New Zealand demonstrate the potential for making use of nineteenth-century beauty culture as an equally significant site for investigation. This paper will consider New Zealand women’s visibility within the nexus of changing standards for female beauty over the second half of the 19th century, focusing in particular on the tension between the pervasive influence of British and American beauty products and the emergent national identity of the healthy, robust and naturally beautiful New Zealand woman who began to inhabit the pages of local newspapers. “Nature has not made all women beautiful, but if it has endowed her with good taste and habits of cleanliness the chances are she will be a greater success in social and domestic circles than if she depended upon mere physical beauty alone” observed Louisa Alice Baker in the Ladies Pages of the Otago Witness in 1889. Baker’s weekly column was dedicated to topics of the day such as personal beautification and home decoration and contributed to public debates as to what constituted female beauty in the colony.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".