Contemporary customized clothes using folk motifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More and more consumers are attracted to fashion brands that make an extra effort to offer them personalized experiences. The unique details, as well as the complexity of the decorative elements of the folk costume inspire the fashion designers to return to the folk motifs, which they reinterpret and resize while integrating them in the contemporary space, offering models adapted to the customers’ tastes, sizes and preferences and at the same time to make mass customization a profitable production. This study addresses the issue of personalizing clothing items with folk motifs. In order to collect information on consumer satisfaction regarding the use of folk motifs in contemporary clothing, an online survey about the clothing available on the market and about personalized clothes with folk motifs was developed and applied. The survey was applied to a number of 548 respondents from Romania, Bulgaria, Canada and Spain. To determine the correlation between the answers to the questions for the four countries and to analyse the answers in each country, the PCA method was used. Based on the answers to the survey, certain motifs from the folk costumes were selected, reinterpreted in a modern way and inserted in two fabric patterns. The fabrics were produced on a Loom Jacquard SMIT Textile GS900.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".