Bibliographic record
Abstract
For this dialogue, the authors propose to examine the topic of cosmetic surgery, specifically breast implants, and its implications. Our focus is to answer the question, “Is undergoing cosmetic surgery a mode of oppression or empowerment for women?” In order to gain some further insight into the matter, the authors set up a fictional situation. In this situation, two women, Elizabeth and Natalie, engage in a conversation about a famous female celebrity on the cover of a popular beauty magazine. This particular celebrity has just undergone breast augmentation surgery. Elizabeth and Natalie have very different opinions regarding this celebrity’s decision to get implants. This paper is a discussion of whether it is possible for women’s choices regarding cosmetic surgery to be free from ‘coercion’, the definition of ‘power’, and the price and privileges of achieving ‘beauty’.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".