Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to gain an understanding of baby boomers’ physiological and psychological needs through clothing consumption. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative research approach was employed for this study. Data were collected from two generational segments: early baby boomers (1946–1954), and late baby boomers (1955–1964). In total, 13 informants aged from 53 to 71 years were participated in this study. Content analysis and interpretive approach were used for data analysis. Findings According to the findings, there are several reasons why the baby boomers shopped for clothing, including a way of stress relief or retail therapy, wardrobe update, replacement of worn-out garments, attractiveness of clothing styles and convenience. Style, fit, comfort and colour were the four most important product evaluative cues. Other than product cues, age appropriateness is an important factor for clothing consumption. Many informants were disappointed with their current body type, shopping experience and the industry offers. Practical implications Age-appropriate clothing can give wearers greater self-assurance/-gratification. If fashion designers create their products based on the baby boomers’ cognitive age, it would probably increase their customers’ acceptance and satisfaction. Originality/value The rapid growth of the aging population is a global phenomenon. Therefore, investigating the needs and challenges of the baby boomer generation is both timely and imperative. This study intended to offer new knowledge on the issues of baby boomers’ unmet needs, and provide insights and implications to fashion practitioners.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it