Communication of Tactile Experiences in Handcraft Decorations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the important role of tactile experiences in fashion design and consumption focusing on handcraft decorations through examining various experiences of consumers and designers in Korea. In-depth interviews are conducted based on the preliminary literature reviews and questionnaire survey and 20 general fashion consumers and 20 fashion designers participate in the interviews. Firstly, we check their recognitions about handcraft decorations on clothing, which are one of the most representative examples of handwork in fashion design. To find out what can be induced from tactile experiences of handcraft decorations, various pleasures with their handcraft decorated clothes are separately understood in two different situations of the process of making and touching. According to the designers’ interview result, it is possible to form a sympathetic relationship between designers and materials as communicating each other through the tactile experience as using hands. In this procedure, creators come to be immersed more into the work and feel the pleasure of labour. In the consumers’ cases, tactile observation as touching the handcraft decorations stimulus sensible pleasures exploring the materials and also makes them understand the creators’ endeavour and time investment on the decorated clothes and feel empathy to them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".