Eyebrow Shape Preference Across Age, Gender, and Self-reported Ethnic Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preference in eyebrow shape has been studied in young women, but less so in older adults, men, and a wide variety of ethnic groups. OBJECTIVE: To identify preference in eyebrow shape across age groups, genders, and ethnic groups for both the survey responder and the observed subject. METHODS: Digital images of subjects from 3 age groups (18-39, 40-59, and 60+ years), 2 genders (female and male), and 4 self-identified ethnic backgrounds were edited to correspond to 5 brow shapes (Anastasia, head-up, horizontal, rounded, and tail-up). Panels of images representing the same subject with different brow shapes were displayed and responders ranked them in order of attractiveness via an online survey. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two responders answered the survey. Survey responders generally preferred the Anastasia shape, but not in all subgroups. Strength of preference in eyebrow shape was more marked when observing images of women and less marked when observing men. CONCLUSION: An arched brow, such as the Anastasia shape, was the preferred eyebrow shape. This study is limited by its survey nature, underrepresentation of self-identified Black study responders, and categorization of data. Despite these findings, the authors advocate determining eyebrow shape preference individually with patients during cosmetic consultations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".