MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290466163 · doi:10.3390/bs12080270

Men’s Physical Stature: Tackling Heightism and Challenges in Fashion Consumption

2022· article· en· W4290466163 on OpenAlexaff
Osmud Rahman, Henry Navarro Delgado

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFashion and Cultural Textiles
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)SociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In light of the limitations of previous research on fashion consumption by short men, the present study was undertaken to examine the relationship between male body image, height perceptions, clothing choice, garment fit, and heightism. In this study, 3D body scanning technology and in-depth interviews were employed to investigate the relational effects between men's height, body image, and clothing consumption. In total, twelve men exhibiting a height of 5' 8″ or less participated. The findings indicate that "heightism" is prevalent in today's society. As well, the results reveal that overall appearance and physical stature become less important as people grow older. It is evident that short male consumers encounter challenges when they shop for fashionable and well-fitting clothing. They are underserved by the fashion industry and often impacted by judgmental biases. The study supports that garment alteration and buying clothes from the children's section, or a bespoke tailor are not ideal solutions for short men. Furthermore, many of them just accept the fact that they are short and try to find ways to alleviate their frustration when consuming fashion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicFashion and Cultural TextilesFrench-language works237,207