Slow Fashion in Indonesia: Drivers and Outcomes of Slow Fashion Orientations
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
This study aims to measure the willingness to pay premium price in the case of slow fashion by employing consumers’ slow fashion orientation, perceived valued, fashion involvement, and ethical purchase intention as predictor factors. Slow fashion is a fashion that is designed, produced, and consumed ethically by considering environmental, social, and humanitarian issues. Data were collected using an online survey and participants were approached conveniently. In total, 521 participants took part in this study consisting of 360 females and 161 males. The authors applied exploratory factor analysis and structural equation model to analyse the data. This study tested six hypotheses. As a result, slow fashion orientation significantly affected perceived value. Further, a perceived value significantly impacted fashion involvement, ethical purchase intention, and willingness to premium. Also, fashion involvement had a significant effect on ethical purchase intention, and ethical purchase intention had a significant influence on willingness to pay a premium price. This study shows a potential market of slow fashion in a developing country.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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