Is it possible to define the ideal lips?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: The lips are an essential component of the symmetry and aesthetics of the face. Cosmetic surgery to modify the lips has recently gained in popularity, but the results are in some cases disasterous. In this review, we describe the features of the ideal lips for an individual's face. The features of the ideal lips with respect to facial anatomy, important anatomical landmarks of the face, the facial proportions of the lips and ethnic and sexual differences are described. The projection and relative sizes of the upper and lower lips are as significant to lip aesthetics as the proportion of the lips to the rest of the facial structure. Robust, pouty lips are considered to be sexually attractive by both males and females. Horizontal thirds and the golden ratio describe the proportions that contribute to the beauty and attractiveness of the lips. In young Caucasians, the ideal ratio of the vertical height of the upper lip to that of the lower lip is 1:1.6. Blacks, genetically, have a greater lip volume. The shape and volume of a person's lips are of great importance in the perception of beauty by humans. The appearance of the lips in part determines the attractiveness of a person's face. In females, fuller lips in relation to facial width as well as greater vermilion height are considered to be attractive.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".