MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323767231 · doi:10.53103/cjlls.v3i1.84

Illuminating Feminine Pulchritude in Contemporary Advertisements of Cosmetic Products: A Semiotic Analysis

2023· article· en· W4323767231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautySemioticsAdvertisingContentmentValue (mathematics)AppealAestheticsObject (grammar)Ideal (ethics)Product (mathematics)PsychologySociologySocial psychologyArtBusinessLinguisticsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This semiotic analysis aimed to explicate the underlying concepts used by advertisers in promoting cosmetic products. This is also to signify how females are more concerned and sensitive about their beauty through analysing the language of advertisements. Also, this study aimed to reveal the extent to which the language employed by the advertisers exploits the whims and weaknesses of which people, mostly females, have with regards to beauty concepts. The linguistic corpora revealed that advertisers illuminate the concept of beauty by emphasizing the confidence and contentment women can get when they use the cosmetic product. With women as the target market, advertisers focus on enhancing the hegemonic qualities of women such as confidence and sex appeal. These concepts and qualities are made more sensitive to women to persuade female consumers that they can achieve anything they want for a limited price. Advertisers have communicated with female consumers by portraying their ideal selves, alongside with colours and slogans. One can see the value of conceptualizing the desires of people as object of attraction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature StudiesSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207