Machine-learning framework finds female characters display less agency and more emotion than male counterparts
Newswise — Researchers have developed a novel machine-learning framework that uses scene descriptions in movie scripts to automatically recognize different characters’ actions. Applying the framework to hundreds of movie scripts showed that these actions tend to reflect widespread gender stereotypes, some of which are found to be consistent across time. Victor Martinez and colleagues at the University of Southern California, U.S., present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on December 21.
Movies, tv shows, and other media consistently portray traditional gender stereotypes, some of which may be harmful. To deepen understanding of this issue, some researchers have explored the use of computational frameworks as an efficient and accurate way to analyze large amounts of character dialogue in scripts. However, some harmful stereotypes might be communicated not through what characters say, but through their actions.
To explore how characters’ actions might reflect stereotypes, Martinez and colleagues used a machine-learning approach to create a computational model that can automatically analyze scene descriptions in movie scripts and identify different characters’ actions. Using this model, the researchers analyzed over 1.2 million scene descriptions from 912 movie scripts produced from 1909 to 2013, identifying fifty thousand actions performed by twenty thousand characters.
Next, the researchers conducted statistical analyses to examine whether there were differences between the types of actions performed by characters of different genders. These analyses identified a number of differences that reflect known gender stereotypes.
For instance, they found that female characters tend to display less agency than male characters, and that female characters are more likely to show affection. Male characters are less likely to “sob” or “cry,” and female characters are more likely to be subjected to “gawking” or “watching” by other characters, highlighting an emphasis on female appearance.
While the researchers’ model is limited by the extent of its ability to fully capture nuanced societal context relating the script to each scene and the overall narrative, these findings align with prior research on gender stereotypes in popular media, and could help raise awareness of how media might perpetuate harmful stereotypes and thereby influence people’s real-life beliefs and actions. In the future, the new machine-learning framework could be refined and applied to incorporate notions of intersectionality such as between gender, age, and race, to deepen understanding of this issue
The authors add: “Researchers have proposed using machine-learning methods to identify stereotypes in character dialogues in media, but these methods do not account for harmful stereotypes communicated through character actions. To address this issue, we developed a large-scale machine-learning framework that can identify character actions from movie script descriptions. By collecting 1.2 million scene descriptions from 912 movie scripts, we were able to study systematic gender differences in movie portrayals at a large scale.”
(Family Features) Throughout history, humans’ ability to rely on one another has been crucial to survival. Despite modern developments that help individuals live with minimal human engagement, the human need to connect remains.
However, in many parts of America, a trend toward isolation is emerging. Over the past two decades, people are spending more time alone and less time engaging with others in person, according to data from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. One segment of Americans at particular risk of social isolation, loneliness and their negative impacts are select populations who live in rural areas.
“There is an urgent need to take action and improve mental health in rural America,” said Jeff Winton, dairy farmer and founder and chairman of Rural Minds, a nonprofit mental health advocacy organization that partnered with Pfizer to raise awareness about the physical and mental risks of social isolation. “Challenges to mental health can be inherent in a rural lifestyle, including a belief in self-reliance as a virtue, fear of judgment and difficulty getting an appointment with a limited number of mental health professionals, among others.”
Many Americans are increasingly spending more time alone according to the American Time Use Survey. They are increasingly more likely to take meetings, shop, eat and enjoy entertainment at home, making it easier for them to stay within their own four walls and avoid social interactions.
Authentic human connection is a basic but often unacknowledged necessity for health, “as essential to survival as food, water and shelter,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Health Effects of Social Connection and Community.
Understanding Social Isolation
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-third of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely and about one-fourth said they don’t have social and emotional support (the basis of social isolation).
The concepts of social isolation and loneliness can go hand-in-hand, but the two are actually quite different.
Social isolation is defined by an absence of relationships or contact with others. Someone experiencing loneliness may or may not have social connections, but lacks feelings of closeness, support or belonging. Despite the distinction, both can have a negative impact on a person’s mental and even physical health.
Several factors can influence a person’s risk for social isolation and loneliness.
“Social connection is a dynamic that changes over time,” said Nikki Shaffer, senior director, occupational health and wellness, Pfizer. “Transient feelings of loneliness or solitude may be beneficial because they can serve as motivation to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness (even if someone is not isolated) and isolation (even if someone is not lonely) can represent significant health concerns.”
Isolation in Rural America
Compared to people who live in urban areas, many rural Americans experience higher rates of depression and suicide but are less likely to access mental health care services, according to the “Health Disparities in Rural America: Current Challenges and Future Solutions” study published in “Clinical Advisor.” What’s more, CDC data shows suicide rates among people living in rural areas can be 64-68% higher than those in large urban areas.
Rural areas have 20% fewer primary care providers compared to urban areas, according to a report in JAMA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration reports more than 25 million rural Americans, more than half of rural residents, live in mental health professional shortage areas.
Among rural counties, 65% lack a psychiatrist. Nearly 30% of rural Americans don’t have internet access in their homes, which complicates the option for telehealth. These figures from Rural Minds exemplify the challenges facing rural America.
“Some people in rural communities still don’t understand or accept that mental illness is a disease,” said Winton, who grew up on a rural farm. “Rather, a mental illness can often be viewed as a personal weakness or character flaw. A lot of the stigma around mental illness results in unwarranted shame, which adds to the burden for someone already suffering from mental illness.”
Health Impacts of Social Isolation
Loneliness is far more than just a bad feeling; it harms both individual and societal health. In fact, loneliness and social isolation can increase the risk for premature death by 26% and 29%, respectively.
Lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day or drinking six alcoholic drinks daily.
In addition, poor or insufficient social connection is associated with increased risk of disease, including a 29% increased risk of heart disease and a 32% increased risk of stroke.
Social isolation is also associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression and dementia. Additionally, a lack of social connection may increase susceptibility to viruses and respiratory illness.
Learn more about the impact of social isolation, especially on residents of rural areas, and the steps you can take to reduce isolation and loneliness by visiting ruralminds.org.
Boost Your Social Connections
Take a proactive approach to combatting social isolation and loneliness with these everyday actions that can promote stronger social ties.
Invest time in nurturing your relationships through consistent, frequent and high-quality engagement with others. Take time each day to reach out to a friend or family member.
Minimize distractions during conversation to increase the quality of the time you spend with others. For instance, don’t check your phone during meals with friends, important conversations and family time.
Seek out opportunities to serve and support others, either by helping your family, co-workers, friends or people in your community or by participating in community service.
Be responsive, supportive and practice gratitude. As you practice these behaviors, others are more likely to reciprocate, strengthening social bonds, improving relationship satisfaction and building social capital.
Participate in social and community groups such as religious, hobby, fitness, professional and community service organizations to help foster a sense of belonging, meaning and purpose.
Seek help during times of struggle with loneliness or isolation by reaching out to a family member, friend, counselor, health care provider or the 988 crisis line.
Regulations have cleaned up cars, power plants and factories, leaving cleaner air while economies have grown.
Cavan Images/Josh Campbell via Getty ImagesRichard E. Peltier, UMass Amherst
The Trump administration is “reconsidering” more than 30 air pollution regulations, and it offered industries a brief window to apply for exemptions that would allow them to stop following many air quality regulations immediately if approved. All of the exemptions involve rules finalized in 2024 and include regulations for hazardous air pollutants that cause asthma, heart disease and cancer.
The results – if regulations are ultimately rolled back and if those rollbacks and any exemptions stand up to court challenges – could impact air quality across the United States.
“Reconsideration” is a term used to review or modify a government regulation. While Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin provided few details, the breadth of the regulations being reconsidered affects all Americans. They include rules that set limits for pollutants that can harm human health, such as ozone, particulate matter and volatile organic carbon.
Zeldin wrote on March 12, 2025, that his deregulation moves would “roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden “taxes” on U.S. families.“
What Zeldin didn’t say is that the economic and health benefits from decades of federal clean air regulations have far outweighed their costs. Some estimates suggest every $1 spent meeting clean air rules has returned $10 in health and economic benefits.
How far America has come, because of regulations
In the early 1970s, thick smog blanketed American cities and acid rain stripped forests bare from the Northeast to the Midwest.
Air pollution wasn’t just a nuisance – it was a public health emergency. But in the decades since, the United States has engineered one of the most successful environmental turnarounds in history.
Thanks to stronger air quality regulations, pollution levels have plummeted, preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths annually. And despite early predictions that these regulations would cripple the economy, the opposite has proven true: The U.S. economy more than doubled in size while pollution fell, showing that clean air and economic growth can – and do – go hand in hand.
The numbers are eye-popping.
An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the first 20 years of the Clean Air Act, from 1970 to 1990, found the economic benefits of the regulations were about 42 times greater than the costs.
The EPA later estimated that the cost of air quality regulations in the U.S. would be about US$65 billion in 2020, and the benefits, primarily in improved health and increased worker productivity, would be around $2 trillion. Other studies have found similar benefits.
That’s a return of more than 30 to 1, making clean air one of the best investments the country has ever made.
Science-based regulations even the playing field
The turning point came with the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, which put in place strict rules on pollutants from industry, vehicles and power plants.
These rules targeted key culprits: lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter – substances that contribute to asthma, heart disease and premature deaths. An example was the removal of lead, which can harm the brain and other organs, from gasoline. That single change resulted in far lower levels of lead in people’s blood, including a 70% drop in U.S. children’s blood-lead levels.
Air Quality regulations lowered the amount of lead being used in gasoline, which also resulted in rapidly declining lead concentrations in the average American between 1976-1980. This shows us how effective regulations can be at reducing public health risks to people.USEPA/Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (1986)
The results have been extraordinary. Since 1980, emissions of six major air pollutants have dropped by 78%, even as the U.S. economy has more than doubled in size. Cities that were once notorious for their thick, choking smog – such as Los Angeles, Houston and Pittsburgh – now see far cleaner air, while lakes and forests devastated by acid rain in the Northeast have rebounded.
Comparison of growth areas and declining emissions, 1970-2023.EPA
And most importantly, lives have been saved. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically estimate the costs and benefits of air quality regulations. In the most recent estimate, released in 2011, the EPA projected that air quality improvements would prevent over 230,000 premature deaths in 2020. That means fewer heart attacks, fewer emergency room visits for asthma, and more years of healthy life for millions of Americans.
The economic payoff
Critics of air quality regulations have long argued that the regulations are too expensive for businesses and consumers. But the data tells a very different story.
EPA studies have confirmed that clean air regulations improve air quality over time. Other studies have shown that the health benefits greatly outweigh the costs. That pays off for the economy. Fewer illnesses mean lower health care costs, and healthier workers mean higher productivity and fewer missed workdays.
The EPA estimated that for every $1 spent on meeting air quality regulations, the United States received $9 in benefits. A separate study by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research in 2024 estimated that each $1 spent on air pollution regulation brought the U.S. economy at least $10 in benefits. And when considering the long-term impact on human health and climate stability, the return is even greater.
Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles in 1984: Smog was a common problem in the 1970s and 1980s.Ian Dryden/Los Angeles Times/UCLA Archive/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
The next chapter in clean air
The air Americans breathe today is cleaner, much healthier and safer than it was just a few decades ago.
Yet, despite this remarkable progress, air pollution remains a challenge in some parts of the country. Some urban neighborhoods remain stubbornly polluted because of vehicle emissions and industrial pollution. While urban pollution has declined, wildfire smoke has become a larger influence on poor air quality across the nation.
That means the EPA still has work to do.
If the agency works with environmental scientists, public health experts and industry, and fosters honest scientific consensus, it can continue to protect public health while supporting economic growth. At the same time, it can ensure that future generations enjoy the same clean air and prosperity that regulations have made possible.
By instead considering retracting clean air rules, the EPA is calling into question the expertise of countless scientists who have provided their objective advice over decades to set standards designed to protect human lives. In many cases, industries won’t want to go back to past polluting ways, but lifting clean air rules means future investment might not be as protective. And it increases future regulatory uncertainty for industries.
The past offers a clear lesson: Investing in clean air is not just good for public health – it’s good for the economy. With a track record of saving lives and delivering trillion-dollar benefits, air quality regulations remain one of the greatest policy success stories in American history.
This article, originally published March 12, 2025, has been updated with the administration’s offer of exemptions for industries.Richard E. Peltier, Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, UMass Amherst
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, a major transportation hub in Arizona, is set to undergo significant improvements with a new construction project at Terminal 3. According to AZ Family, the work is officially commencing this month on a project that will enhance the airport’s infrastructure, making it more accommodating for travelers.
Expansion at Sky Harbor
The upcoming expansion, which boasts a budget of $326 million, will introduce a new concourse on the north side of Terminal 3. This new addition is designed to increase the terminal’s capacity by adding six new passenger gates, bringing the total to 26 gates. The construction will encompass a vast 173,000 square feet, ultimately providing more flight options and enhanced facilities for travelers.
As reported by AZ Central, the expansion is much-needed, given that Terminal 3 is the oldest terminal at Sky Harbor. McCarthy Building Cos. Inc. has been entrusted with the construction, and they are committed to creating an exceptional experience for passengers. Thomas Assante, McCarthy’s senior project director, stated, “Every portion of the new Terminal 3 concourse will provide an exceptional experience for Sky Harbor passengers.” Notably, McCarthy has experience with airport projects, having recently completed a five-gate concourse at Mesa Gateway Airport, which opened in February 2024.
In addition to expanding gate capacity, the new Terminal 3 concourse plans to feature improvements beyond functionality. Travelers can look forward to new dining options, including three food and beverage spaces, as well as two retail spaces, alongside a passenger lounge. Greg Roybal, an airport spokesman, has confirmed these plans, emphasizing the project’s focus on improving the overall passenger experience.
The anticipated completion date for the new concourse is set for 2027. Once finished, this expansion will not only bolster the terminal’s capabilities but also enhance the amenities available to travelers. The airlines currently operating out of Terminal 3 include Delta, United, Frontier, and Alaska Airlines, among others.
As this construction project unfolds, we will keep readers updated with the latest developments and milestones. With these enhancements on the horizon, Sky Harbor Airport is poised to deliver an even better travel experience for passengers in the coming years. Stay tuned!
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
(Family Features) Throughout history, humans’ ability to rely on one another has been crucial to survival. Despite modern developments that help individuals live with minimal human engagement, the human need to connect remains.
However, in many parts of America, a trend toward isolation is emerging. Over the past two decades, people are spending more time alone and less time engaging with others in person, according to data from the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General. One segment of Americans at particular risk of social isolation, loneliness and their negative impacts are select populations who live in rural areas.
“There is an urgent need to take action and improve mental health in rural America,” said Jeff Winton, dairy farmer and founder and chairman of Rural Minds, a nonprofit mental health advocacy organization that partnered with Pfizer to raise awareness about the physical and mental risks of social isolation. “Challenges to mental health can be inherent in a rural lifestyle, including a belief in self-reliance as a virtue, fear of judgment and difficulty getting an appointment with a limited number of mental health professionals, among others.”
Many Americans are increasingly spending more time alone according to the American Time Use Survey. They are increasingly more likely to take meetings, shop, eat and enjoy entertainment at home, making it easier for them to stay within their own four walls and avoid social interactions.
Authentic human connection is a basic but often unacknowledged necessity for health, “as essential to survival as food, water and shelter,” according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Health Effects of Social Connection and Community.
Understanding Social Isolation
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about one-third of U.S. adults reported feeling lonely and about one-fourth said they don’t have social and emotional support (the basis of social isolation).
The concepts of social isolation and loneliness can go hand-in-hand, but the two are actually quite different.
Social isolation is defined by an absence of relationships or contact with others. Someone experiencing loneliness may or may not have social connections, but lacks feelings of closeness, support or belonging. Despite the distinction, both can have a negative impact on a person’s mental and even physical health.
Several factors can influence a person’s risk for social isolation and loneliness.
“Social connection is a dynamic that changes over time,” said Nikki Shaffer, senior director, occupational health and wellness, Pfizer. “Transient feelings of loneliness or solitude may be beneficial because they can serve as motivation to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness (even if someone is not isolated) and isolation (even if someone is not lonely) can represent significant health concerns.”
Isolation in Rural America
Compared to people who live in urban areas, many rural Americans experience higher rates of depression and suicide but are less likely to access mental health care services, according to the “Health Disparities in Rural America: Current Challenges and Future Solutions” study published in “Clinical Advisor.” What’s more, CDC data shows suicide rates among people living in rural areas can be 64-68% higher than those in large urban areas.
Rural areas have 20% fewer primary care providers compared to urban areas, according to a report in JAMA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration reports more than 25 million rural Americans, more than half of rural residents, live in mental health professional shortage areas.
Among rural counties, 65% lack a psychiatrist. Nearly 30% of rural Americans don’t have internet access in their homes, which complicates the option for telehealth. These figures from Rural Minds exemplify the challenges facing rural America.
“Some people in rural communities still don’t understand or accept that mental illness is a disease,” said Winton, who grew up on a rural farm. “Rather, a mental illness can often be viewed as a personal weakness or character flaw. A lot of the stigma around mental illness results in unwarranted shame, which adds to the burden for someone already suffering from mental illness.”
Health Impacts of Social Isolation
Loneliness is far more than just a bad feeling; it harms both individual and societal health. In fact, loneliness and social isolation can increase the risk for premature death by 26% and 29%, respectively.
Lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day or drinking six alcoholic drinks daily.
In addition, poor or insufficient social connection is associated with increased risk of disease, including a 29% increased risk of heart disease and a 32% increased risk of stroke.
Social isolation is also associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression and dementia. Additionally, a lack of social connection may increase susceptibility to viruses and respiratory illness.
Learn more about the impact of social isolation, especially on residents of rural areas, and the steps you can take to reduce isolation and loneliness by visiting 
