Exploring the connection between odour and clothing disposal
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
Increasing textile waste poses a significant environmental problem. There are many motivating factors that can influence a person's choice about when and how to dispose of unwanted clothing. The development and persistence of odour within clothing may be one such factor. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between clothing odour and disposal behaviour. In particular, whether consumers dispose of odorous clothing differently from non-odorous clothing. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to a convenience sample through social networks. Responses from 529 consumers residing in Canada and the United States were analysed. The majority of respondents (98.7%) have perceived odour in a clothing item at some point. Of these, approximately half had gotten rid of an article of clothing at some time because it became too odorous to wear. Odour was not a major reason for consumers to discard their clothing. However, when odour was a reason for disposal, respondents reported they were less likely to donate, give-away or sell odorous clothing and more likely to throw odorous clothing items directly into the trash. Therefore, although persistent odour in clothing plays only a minor role on sustainable disposal behaviour, when odour is a motivating factor for discard it leads to less sustainable disposal practices.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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