MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320512503 · doi:10.2991/978-2-494069-31-2_71

Social Media Opinion Leaders Who Cater to the Male Gaze and Their Influence on Beauty Standards: A Case Study on Kim Kardashian’s Posts on Instagram

2022· book-chapter· en· W4320512503 on OpenAlexaff
Shiyun Yang, Yiran Dang, Yuhan Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities research · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautySocial mediaIdeologyPerceptionGazePsychologyAdvertisingOpinion leadershipSocial psychologyAestheticsPolitical scienceArtPublic relationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the product of the long-lasting patriarchal social system, the male gaze is not only directing the gender performances on social media but also affecting females' behaviors in the display of beauty in real life.Social media and opinion leaders are shaping active online users' perceptions of the current beauty standard due to the audience's repeated exposure to those media content that shows feminine beauty ideals.The paper did a case study on Kim Kardashian's photos posted on Instagram using categorical sampling and data analysis as the research methods in the two surveys.This research proved the cater to the male gaze in photos posted by celebrities on social media and discusses the influence of social media opinion leaders on the audience's ideology and behavior regarding beauty standards.As a result, over-engaging with social networking platforms and images published by social media opinion leaders can lead to severe consequences on the audience, such as appearance anxiety and low self-esteem.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.029
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.320 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research/Advances in social science, education and humanities researchSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207