Ethical fashion dimensions: pictorial and auditory depictions through three cultural perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide the results of an exploratory study comparing attitudes of young fashion conscious consumers towards ethical fashion in Canada, France and the UK. Design/methodology/approach – The methods used in this research were qualitative with a mix of interviews and focus groups and a new application of a visual method widely used within design and fashion environments, the mood board. The study is based within the contrast of a growing trend towards sustainability and the rise of fast fashion where consumers are increasingly demanding cheaper items. The research is also grounded in cross-cultural research where the comparison of data emanating from different cultures and languages presents specific dilemmas for researchers. Findings – Results indicated that there were notable differences in the perception of ethical fashion between the respondents from these three cultures. In the representation and appeal of this fashion segment, in terms of its perceived availability, the transfer of meaning connected with the observation of higher price points and in the use of ethical purchases in the fashion arena as an offset or redemption for unethical behaviour in other contexts. Originality/value – The originality of this paper lies in the innovative use of the visual qualitative methods which contributes to the debate concerning the research methods associated with cross-cultural research and extends the restricted body of literature which compares cultural attitudes in this area by offering key insights into the complex issues surrounding ethical fashion consumption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".