MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Colour, Clothing, and the Concept of ‘Green’: Colour Trend Analysis and Professionals’ Perspectives

2012· article· en· W2068587846 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Fashion Marketing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingOrder (exchange)BusinessMarketingAdvertisingPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasingly, many fashion companies and organizations have introduced slogans such as ‘green is the new black’ and ‘get hip, get green’ to raise ‘green’ awareness as well as to build corporate image. This study was designed to explore industry opinion on what colour(s) is/are more likely associated with the notion of ‘green.’ In order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between colour and environmental issues, a self-administered questionnaire survey was used to collect data from various professionals. According to the present study, it is evident that certain colours are viewed to be more eco-friendly than others. The findings of this study provide insight and implications for fashion practitioners, educators and consumers on the concept of eco-friendly in general and colour attribute in particular.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it