Virtual approach of the aesthetical fit between hair colours and skin tones in women of different ethnical origin backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the aesthetical accordance between a given skin tone and the 11 possible colours of head hairs, covered by a marketed hair colouration product. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The photographs of professional top models, representing several ancestries (non-Hispanic European and Euro-American, East Asian, Hispanic Euro-American, and African-American ancestries), were used to virtually modify skin tones (from light, medium to dark) and hair colour by an artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm. Hence, 117 modified photographs were then assessed by five local panels of about 60 women each (one in China, one in France and three in US). The same questionnaire was given to the panels, written in their own language, asking which and how both skin tones and hair colours fit preferentially (or not appreciated), asking in addition the reasons of their choices, using fixed wordings. RESULTS: Answers from the five panels differed according to origin or cultural aspects, although some agreements were found among both non-Hispanic European and Euro-American groups. The Hispanic American panel in US globally much appreciated darker hair tones (HTs). Two panels (East Asian in China and African American in US) and part of non-Hispanic European panel in France declared appreciating all HTs, almost irrespective with the skin tone (light, medium and dark). This surprising result is very likely caused by gradings (in %) that differ by too low values, making the establishment of a decisive or significant assessment. By nature highly subjective (culturally and/or fashion driven), the assessments should be more viewed as trends, an unavoidable limit of the present virtual approach. The latter offers nevertheless a full respect of ethical rules as such objective could hardly be conducted in vivo: applying 10 or 11 hair colourations on the same individual is an unthinkable option. CONCLUSION: The virtual approach developed in the present study that mixes two major facial coloured phenotypes seems at the crossroad of both genetic backgrounds and the secular desire of a modified appearance. Nonetheless, this methodology could afford, at the individual level in total confidentiality, a great help to subjects exposed to some facial skin disorders or afflictions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".