MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250459547 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14664366

The forgotten women: an exploratory study of baby boomers’ attitudes towards fashion magazines

2021· preprint· en· W4250459547 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Des Rosiers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersExploratory researchPerceptionDiversity (politics)PsychologyOrder (exchange)Reading (process)Gender studiesHuman sexualityAdvertisingSociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An exploratory study of female baby boomers’ perceptions of fashion magazines was conducted using in depth interviews. This research acknowledges that fashion tends to focus on a youthful demographic, and fashion assumes this older demographic will conform to the youthful ideals that are displayed. Fashion magazines are therefore faced with the challenge of how to attract older female readers while still portraying a fashionable image. By taking a qualitative approach that focuses on verbal descriptions and human emotion, this research will help explain the perceptions and attitudes felt by female baby boomers. Participants indicated diversity, going green, embracing sexuality, clothedness, and body size, influenced their reading of fashion magazines. This research advances knowledge by revealing the central themes that influence baby boomer women’s responses to fashion magazines. It advises fashion editors to re-consider their current casting and editorial practices in order to attract baby boomer women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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