Gifting from the closet: thoughtful or thoughtless?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the random collection of items for gifting which are stored in one’s home in a special place. Traditional gift-giving models suggest gift givers buy gifts for certain recipients on certain occasions. This study ' s journey into gift storage finds that some gift-giving practices are initially acquisition-less, recipient-less and/or occasion-less. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a convenience sample of 111, the main functions and motivations for gift storage are described. From a free elicitation process of gift-closet attributes, a first account of the symbolic meanings that gift storage is embedded in is provided. Findings – Seventy-seven per cent per cent of the sample had a gift closet where they stored gifts for which either the occasion or the recipient was not known at the time of acquisition. According to these gift-closet owners, the main purposes of gift closets are convenience, thrift and to have a place for surplus or shopping items. Social implications – While it makes sense to some consumers to prepare for future gift-giving occasions by stockpiling items in gift closets, the results indicate that storage may affect the symbolic value of the gift and, ultimately, the development of social ties. Consumers who gift from the closet believe that there are few negatives involved. However, people who do not have gift closets and receive gifts which they suspect are from storage may perceive a lack of caring and even feel insulted. Originality/value – Due to the unexplored nature of gift storage, the results reported in this paper represent a first exploratory account of gift storage and its possible effects on the relationship-building capacity of gifts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".