A Critical Look at “Marketing, Consumption, and Society” by Anti-Consumerists: A Qualitative and Interdisciplinary Model of Anti-Consumerism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the article is to provide the literature of anti-consumerism with a model, as well as a fresh definition of anti-consumption, based on the research findings. The study utilizes the grounded theory methodology developed by Glaser & Strauss (1967) and the causative, teleological, and behavioral nature of anti-consumerism are presented with the qualitative model. The findings show that there are no noticeable differences among Turkish anti-consumerists in terms of philosophy, values, and ideology. However, it was observed that individuals display different amounts of anti-consumerist behavior in varying degrees of intensity. When the reasons for anti-consumption are examined, it has been found that these reasons can be divided into three kinds—personal, social, and societal. Another finding is that the anti-consumerist transformation conforms to the development tasks described by Havighurst (1972). Young individuals trying to fit in with the dynamics of the social group also try to find their own unique identities with teachings and awareness on macro and micro scales, eventually turning into anti-consumerists.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".