MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279169897 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n3p31

Fashion Design from Woven Fabrics of Community Enterprise Group

2016· article· en· W2279169897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nirat Soodsang

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)Sample (material)MarketingAccidental samplingBusinessOperations managementEngineeringMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The objectives of this study were to 1) design fashion and bags from woven fabrics of the community enterprise group in Pitsanulok province 2) compare the quality of products based on the criteria used to measure community products classified by features, genders, level of income and 3) present a prototype from local woven fabrics in Pitsanulok province. The research procedure includes the sample group which incorporates 67 consumers in their working ages. Accidental sampling design was implemented. The instruments were modified and validated by the standard of community products scp. 196/2003 entitled handmade products from fabrics quality assured in terms of the product neatness, benefits, materials, and manufacturing processes as well as marketing possibility and career advancement. The results were that the fashion design and bags from the local woven fabrics proposed as the prototype had their own valued adding and could be able to market. As regards the quality assurance, the satisfactory level was good. Also, when the satisfactory level of the consumers towards the products were compared regarding genders and level of income, there was no significant differences found.<strong></strong></p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCrafts, Textile, and DesignFrench-language works237,207