MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208877862 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655633.v1

Dapper dudes: an exploration of young men's fashion consumption and conceptions of masculinity

2021· preprint· en· W3208877862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dylan Martin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityClothingHegemonic masculinityScholarshipConsumption (sociology)Gender studiesHegemonyRomanceSociologyStyle (visual arts)AestheticsPsychologyPolitical scienceArtSocial scienceVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If sensationalized media reports are any indication, the men’s fashion industry has entered into an exciting phase of expansion and evolution. As the market diversifies to become increasingly vibrant and varied, prominent ready-to-wear labels continue to showcase evermore divergent and gender-blurring designs in what is celebrated as an anything-goes period in menswear. To examine whether these clothing trends and industry transitions have lasting real world implications, this research seeks to give voice to fashion-conscious male consumers - the subject of scarce qualitative scholarship. Insights gleaned from 20 in-depth interviews with young Canadian men point to contemporary shifts not only in shopping habits and tastes, but also in hegemonic masculinity. Responding to romantic assertions that there are “no rules” in twenty-first century fashion, findings examine the extent to which long withstanding Western menswear conventions prevail. Through illuminating the lived experiences of sartorially savvy males aged 19 to 29, this study uncovers how Generation Y men navigate gender norms and expectations while crafting an idiosyncratic sense of style. Ultimately, this research enriches existing industry and theoretical understandings of how young men approach fashion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFashion and Cultural TextilesFrench-language works237,207