Fashion Designers and National Identity: A Comparative Empirical Analysis of Chinese and Korean Fashion Designers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to observe the similarities and differences between contemporary Chinese and Korean fashion designers in understanding the concept of national identity. To achieve this objective, the literature review and in-depth interview were conducted. The results are as follows: Firstly, the model that interprets the influence factors of designers’ awareness of national identity was built. Under the social background of national identity, including governmental role, features of culture, openness of social system and the international and economic status, features of fashion and fashion designers influence on national identity expressed in designers’ fashion works. Secondly, three main similarities between fashion designers’ awareness have been found. The first is that both Chinese and Korean fashion designers emphasize broader regional concept about national identity; the second is that influence of national identity is subtle and not obvious; the third is that fashion designers have mixed consciousness of self-identity and national identity. Thirdly, there are three main differences between Chinese and Korean fashion designers’ awareness. The first is that the adoption of ethnic national identity in fashion design is more related to the traditional ethnic elements in Chinese while modern elements were favored more by Korean. The second is that Chinese designers as a whole showed a deeper comprehension of traditional ethnic culture or philosophy than Korean designers do. The third is that more solid and positive attitude toward the government caused Chinese designers to have a more intensive civic national identity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".