Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Patagonia clothing company makes outdoor and casual clothing which is both functional and stylish. Although concerned with style and image, the company distances itself from any association with “fashion.” They identify their “core-customer” as a very fit person who aspires to step outside mainstream society, and who engages in extreme sports through which they have transformative experiences in sublime wilderness landscapes. Patagonia's marketing strategies and business practices intentionally minimize environmental damage, promote sustainability, and encourage people to appreciate wilderness and what can be experienced in it. Even assuming that the company has the best of intentions, the fact is that their marketing practices, and the messages they convey—about the integrity of practices, and the sublime aesthetic that motivates them—in fact increase consumption well beyond the needs of their “core-customer.” With today's movement towards eco and ethical production, companies will follow different paths in addressing, or appearing to address, “green” concerns. This article traces the trajectory of one company, Patagonia, over the past four decades.Patagonia's story illustrates the paradoxes that often arise when “green” practices actually increase consumption. I argue that Patagonia has a double greenness in its combined discourses of sustainability, and also of nature as place of transformation. This intermeshing of practicality and desire comprises what I call a complicated greenness. Customers buy what is “ecofashion” (despite the company's rhetorical distance from fashion) and in the process may literally “buy into” a process that carries forward the very economic and ecological trajectory they would ideally curtail.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".