MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234554846 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644872

Faith and Fashion: Christian Dress and Identity

2021· preprint· en· W4234554846 on OpenAlexaff
Jacquline Angella Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingChristian faithSociologyFaithIdentity (music)Christian ChurchGender studiesChristianityQualitative researchAestheticsSocial psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawReligious studiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Christian women in Western societies are criticized about their manner of dress. The criticisms and debates address issues of “modesty” and “appropriateness,” or a sense of “propriety.” The apparel that is being designed, presented on the secular runways, and subsequently marketed hardly caters to Christian female consumers. This study seeks to answer the question: How do Christian women select, evaluate, and consume so-called modest and/or appropriate clothing in different socio-cultural contexts, particularly for church and other formal occasions? The study focuses on what is considered modest and appropriate clothing for Christian women. The perspectives of 10 Christian women were investigated and evaluated in a qualitative manner. A review of the literature indicates that there are concerns and issues surrounding this topic. Essentially, the purpose of the present research was to investigate and provide insight into how Christian women are expected to dress in a Westernized society; to determine what constitutes modesty and appropriateness for this specific demographic segment; and to analyze the experiences of Christian women in the process of obtaining modest apparel.

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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient 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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.219 · 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