MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132483339 · doi:10.1177/1470593111403215

Contesting the social impact of marketing: A re-characterization of women’s fashion advertising

2011· article· en· W2132483339 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

VenueMarketing Theory · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingPersuasionPrima facieTasteIdeologyClearanceProduct (mathematics)ClothingMarketingSociologyPsychologyBusinessSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevailing view is that imagery in fashion advertising is idealized, and that repeated exposure to the gap between ideal and real is toxic to women’s self-esteem, providing prima facie evidence for the negative impact of the marketing system on vulnerable consumers. We challenge this view of fashion ad imagery by means of content analyses and a survey supplemented by interviews. The prevailing view is shown to be ideologically rather than empirically based, and to confuse fashion with other quite different product categories. We conclude by discussing how fashion advertising, once cleared of this ideological debris, provides an opportunity to extend marketing theory to account for a broader range of consumer response across product categories. We also develop the concept of taste goods, such as fashion clothing, as a site where novel routes to persuasion can be studied.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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