The Influence of Visual and Tactile Inputs on Denim Jeans Evaluation
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
This study investigated how visual and tactile inputs might influence consumers’ evaluative processes when they shop for a pair of denim jeans. Qualitative method was adopted to examine both sensory and cognitive responses towards sample denim jeans in respect of product-specific cues such as colour and fabric. The participants were 42 Canadian females aged from 18 to 27 years old. According to the results of this study, dark coloured jeans are often associated with higher prices. Additionally, many participants used fabric hand (the feeling of fabric between fingers) to evaluate the thermo-physiological/sensorial comfort qualities and durability of the jeans, as well as fabric stretch to assess shape retention, physical mobility and psychological comfort (self-/body-image). These findings suggest that consumers do not merely use specific product cues to judge a product’s inherent functional/concrete qualities such as weight, thermal properties, but also link various cues to higher or abstract values such as social, psychological and sensorial benefits/pleasure. Clearly, affective and cognitive processing occurred and coexisted throughout the evaluative process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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