Evaluative criteria for sleepwear: A study of privately consumed product in the People’s Republic of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The purpose of this study is to explore and investigate Chinese male consumers’ perceptions and behaviours towards low involvement and privately consumed product – pyjamas. According to our literature review, little research has been devoted to this particular topic. In this study, multiple product cues were used to measure and uncover what constitute consumers’ evaluation and purchase decisions. The questionnaire survey for this study was conducted in a second-tier city by using the convenience sampling method. In total, 256 useable questionnaires were collected and analysed. This study shows evidence that a majority of the Chinese male respondents did not wear pyjamas for sleeping. The intrinsic cues of sleepwear were ranked relatively higher than extrinsic cues, and the comfort cue was the most important criterion for product evaluation. Further research on this topic focusing on different products, samples and cities are recommended. The findings of this study provide insight and implications for fashion practitioners to develop their product and business in China.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 teacher head, 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".