Research on Contemporary “Chinese Theme” Fashion Design based on Aesthetic Distance Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chinese theme or style has a long history in international fashion design; it is a common theme for Chinese and western designers to pursue Oriental sentiment and express Oriental aesthetics. However, for contemporary Chinese theme fashion design, Chinese and western designers have different understanding and interpretation, and there are many differences in design techniques and effects. In this paper, we propose to research on contemporary Chinese theme fashion design based on the theory of aesthetic distance, and interpret the essence of Chinese theme fashion design from different aesthetic distances. In addition, the basic principles of contemporary Chinese theme clothing design are summarized through the analysis and comparison of Chinese and western design cases. The results show that Chinese theme design, to the West, represents “the other” and “exotic theme” in a modern way; while in the eyes of Chinese people, it is a contemporary embodiment of “retro theme”. The clothing design in modern Chinese fashion should, based on the design elements collected in an expansive and deep way, pursue the balance and integration of “conservative” and “avant-garde” elements and the harmony of “form” and “spirit”, abiding by the fundamental principle of “absorbing tradition” to “create the present”.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".