The interplay between liminality and consumption: A systematic literature review with a future research agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the last three decades, the concept of liminality has been used by consumer researchers to examine consumption‐related phenomena associated with ambiguous transitions and meaningful transformative events. Inspired by the richness of this concept, researchers have continuously applied and extended the theoretical lens it affords to new and emerging contexts. However, the literature on liminality remains fragmented, and it is sometimes confusing because of the complex relationship between liminality and consumption. To dispel this confusion, this study builds on the findings of a systematic literature review to clarify the interplay between liminality and consumption and to develop a comprehensive framework for examining their relationship with each other. This framework offers a theoretical lens for the conceptual investigation of this interplay and, ultimately, for the development of a theory of liminal consumption. Four different conceptual associations between liminality and consumption are identified: liminal products, liminal consumption, consumption‐caused liminality, and liminality‐caused consumption, and their unique manifestations are theorized. Using the notion of lifeworld existentials, this study also examines various types of liminal experiences and shows that they have four overarching modes: time, space, position, and the body. Important avenues for future research are also discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".