MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389330440 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhad440

American Capitalism’s Role in South African Beauty Culture

2023· article· en· W4389330440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheryl Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDecadence, Literature, and Society
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeautyMetropolitan areaCapitalismArt historyHistoryMedia studiesAnthropologyArtPolitical scienceSociologyLawAestheticsArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Lynn M. Thomas’s Beneath the Surface: A Transnational History of Skin Lighteners, South Africa (and the African continent in general) is a case study for understanding the historical consumption of skin lighteners and the transnational consumer economy that was engendered via local media industries and the pharmaceutical and manufacturing sectors. The book unpacks the questions: Why would people want to alter the color of their skin, and why would they endure harmful health effects to do so? As an outgrowth of global US-American capitalism, skin lighteners have been and remain big business. Sales for skin lightening products are expected to reach over $31 billion USD by 2024. While these products are sold in the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, the book focuses on South Africa because, as Thomas explains, the United States’ historical capitalist investment in the country was unparalleled compared to other regions through ventures such as the skin lightener company Ambi, a brand that arrived in southern Africa in 1963. The United States not only exported skin lightening products but also, according to this book’s thesis, influenced the advertising, celebrity culture, and product development that featured heavily in South African newspapers and photo magazines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicDecadence, Literature, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207