Attractiveness and Attainment: Status, Beauty, and Jobs in China and the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on how physical attractiveness affects labor market outcomes has yielded contradictory results. Conceptualizing attractiveness as a diffuse status characteristic, the authors emphasize the role of status consistency in matching job applicants to positions of varying prestige. They argue that the effects of attractiveness depend on consistency with the job seeker’s other status characteristics and fit with the status of the focal job. A résumé audit study in China and a survey experiment in the United States both show that more attractive applicants with elite educational credentials were favored for higher-status jobs and less attractive applicants from nonelite universities were favored for lower-status positions. Applicants with either attractive looks or elite educational credentials, but not both, were not favored for either type of job. The authors’ model reconciles the mixed results of previous research and illuminates the interplay between physical and nonphysical status characteristics in labor markets.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 it