Beauty Today – Natural Or Acquired
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since antiquity beauty has been one of the main aims of mankind. We have a great variety of options for reaching it, some of them completely harmless and others a bit more radical. Provoked by the outburst of role models we decided to check whether they actually have any influence. The goal of our research is to determine the public attitudes about aesthetic procedures. The subjects of our online survey are 244 women between 15 and 65 years of age, from all over Bulgaria. According to a significant part (65.16%) a “pretty woman” is the one who takes care of her natural look and no one appears to include plastic surgery in this definition. More than the half of them (52.87%) would not change anything and more than one quarter (26.64%) consider there is a huge marketing manipulation about the eventual consequences. Mostly young ladies are willing to go for aesthetic manipulations and a small but an important part of them (4.26%) admit they aim to attract the attention of others. Whether this propaganda has any impact on the society, the possible presence of any vulnerable groups and whether we have enough information about all the procedures on the market are among the questions we will try to answer with our research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".