Disarticulating ‘fatness’: Design Activism and the Counter-hegemonic Practices of Co-designing Clothing with Plus-size Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides analysis from a participatory design project wherein an intersectional group of women co-designed clothing intended to meet the aesthetic, functional, emotional, and symbolic needs of plus-size bodies (20+). The work of the collective is as much an exercise in fashion co-design as it is a defiant act of activism intended to dissolve, displace, and contest normative categories used to articulate some bodies as beautiful, desirable, and accepted, and others as failed, ugly, and/or sick. We build upon the concept of articu-lation to consider how co-design, in the spirit of activism, might be taken up as a counter-hegemonic practice used to disarticulate the boundaries that demarcate categories of Other-ness, giving way to space(s) where individuals can try on alternative subjectivities.
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 | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".