MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293240284 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2022.211

The cleanliness of Beautyblenders

2022· article· en· W4293240284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angela Wong, Environmental Health BCIT School of Health Sciences, Dale Chen, Kevin J. Freer

Bibliographic record

VenueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyProduct (mathematics)SpongeBusinessHealth riskArtMedicineEnvironmental healthBiologyMathematicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keeping makeup tools in sanitary conditions is necessary in order to prevent the risk of pathogenic microbes from multiplying in unhygienic conditions which may pose a risk to health (Bashir & Lambert, 2019). Beautyblenders are a highly regarded product by consumers worldwide (Shah, 2016). The company launched their sponges in 2007 and in 2016, they have sold more than 6.5 million sponges globally (Bashir & Lambert, 2019). It is a reusable pink cosmetic sponge that can be used with a number of different cosmetic products such as foundations, beauty creams, and concealers for application on the face. This study is about examining the public who uses Beautyblenders and their knowledge in regards to cleaning the reusable sponges.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCIT Environmental Public Health JournalSame topicHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207