Gen Y’s, Italians’ and Americans’ perception of cashmere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand and compare Generation Y’s knowledge and perceptions of cashmere as a luxurious fibre. Design/methodology/approach – Dual qualitative-quantitative approach, comprising interviews with cashmere farmers and suppliers plus a structured questionnaire completed by 334 young Italians and Americans. Data were analysed statistically for comparison and interpretation. Findings – Interviews confirmed the literature and provided insights why cashmere is “branded” as luxurious; e.g. comes from combing the undercoat of cashmere goats thus it is rare, expensive, very warm, light, and soft. Quantitative analysis showed: the majority (+85 per cent) of the young Italians and Americans perceive cashmere fibre as luxurious and expensive, although statistically Americans participants perceive it as more luxurious and more expensive. For example, 75 per cent Italian, 85 per cent Americans think it is expensive, (µ=2.914/4 andµ=3.156/4, respectively). Americans do not perceive it as being as rare as the Italian group. Italians were more able to answer the question about richness of the fibre. Lastly and surprisingly both groups knew very little about the origin: 40 per cent of both groups thought it comes from sheep whereas 20 per cent from Alpaca. Practical implications – While neither sample knew the source, they both mentioned they would like to know more about the origin, attributes, etc., opening the door to marketing experts. Originality/value – This study complements and enhances the relatively limited body of knowledge in the academic and professional literature and provides useful information for producers, suppliers, retailers, and especially marketers of cashmere.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".