Cooperation and knowledge exchanges in creative careers: network support for fashion designers' careers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fashion worlds describe the transition from Fordism towards a new type of economic model and supply chain in which creativity and innovation are favoured and where networks and reputation become more important for international branding. The world of fashion design is one that is characterised as being cultural and creative. It is worth considering that the transition from Fordism to a service oriented economy brings forth major paradigmatic changes. Our research on designers and major actors in the fashion design industry shows that branding of fashion designers takes new routes, and we observe a subculture that is resistant to standardisation and proposes niche markets supported by networks and new intermediary actors. The cooperation of networks and intermediary actors appears essential for the development of these creative careers, through knowledge exchanges and collaboration. We highlight the role of these collective actors, networks and organisations in supporting designers in access to knowledge and career development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".