Research on Shanghai-style Culture's Impact on the Development of Chinese Domestic Luxury Brands - From the Perspective of "Shanghai Tang"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Shanghai-style culture", which was rooted in the traditional Chinese culture, produced the ,modern urban culture with unique Chinese characteristics after lasting collision and integration with the Western culture. It was inseparable from the development of Shanghai, which was China's first city to have a "capital market". Due to the unique historical background, Shanghai's economic development, social patterns and consumer attitudes contributed to the breeding of domestic luxury brands. As the earliest domestic luxury brand in Shanghai, "Shanghai Tang" has been affected by "Shanghai-style culture" since its creation. This paper attempts to illustrate the direct impact of "Shanghai-style culture" on the brands by analyzing the brand culture as well as the clothing design styles, which are characterized by revival of Chinese traditions and integration with current fashion.In this paper, through the introduction and the first part summarizes the origin and development of local culture, expounds the relationship between the Shanghai style culture and brand culture, through the brand culture influence to the product design style.The second part from the design of color and style reflects the idea of Shanghai style culture influence on design style, from the classical and modern combination of style, color change reflect the influence of the design to the brand.Finally come to the conclusion that the influence of the Shanghai style culture from the design style that extends to the company culture, to the generation of Chinese luxury brand laid a solid cultural foundation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".