You Aren’t What You Wear: An Exploration into Infinifat Identity Construction and Performance through Fashion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through remote wardrobe interviews with five self-identified infinifat participants, this paper explores how those existing in a body larger than a US dress-size 32 access fashion. The majority of research that has occurred at the intersection of fat studies and fashion studies has focused on the fashion and dressing experiences of women who fit the conventional definition of “plus-size.” Commercially available, mass-produced fashion options drop off dramatically for women larger than a US dress-size 28 and become almost non-existent for those who are a size 32 or larger. By focusing on infinifat or superfat people who exist beyond a size 32 I draw attention to the impact that the lack of access to fashion has on the subjectivities infinifat people can perform. The findings in this paper build from existing literature on plus-size dressing that focuses on limitations in identity construction and performance experienced by those who are able to access commercially available plus-size fashion. Without readily available, situationally-appropriate clothing, infinifat and superfat people are limited in the subjectivities they can perform and are excluded from specific social spaces. This exclusion serves to remarginalize an already marginalized group and is felt most acutely by those who embody additional marginalized identity markers, such as those who are racialized or living in poverty. In this way, the findings presented in this paper further address the infinifat-sized gain existing literature on plus-size dressing and lay the foundation for future work that engages with the infinifatshion community.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".