Fashion industry perceptions of clothing design for persons with a physical disability: the need for building partnerships for future innovation
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
Introduction: Persons with a physical disability may need adapted clothing to facilitate their full participation in society; it is unclear what information designers use to create adapted clothing. Objective: Explore the perspectives of fashion industry representatives regarding adapted clothing and gauge their receptiveness towards academic inquiry. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with five female adapted clothing designers were conducted, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed thematically. Results: Participants felt research (i.e. knowledge and guidance) could benefit the design process and spoke about industry barriers (e.g. time, manufacturing, human and material resources, marketing, level of importance) to designing adapted clothing. Conclusions: Strengthening collaborations with stakeholders (e.g. researchers, designers, consumers, health professionals, caregivers) may add credibility to future adapted clothing designs and bridge the gap between research and practice. Engagement from fashion design trainees could also contribute to growing a more socially responsible industry.
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 | 0.000 | 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