Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>ABSTRACT:</h3> For Ghana’s style-conscious women, <i>life</i>—in the form of African-print fashion—”goes on” despite three decades of economic decline caused by the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Programs, which ended many women’s ability to wear and stockpile assets in costly “Holland” wax-print cloth. In the early years of the twenty-first century, Ghana’s struggling commission-based grassroots fashion system has been reinvigorated by the advent of affordable Chinese- manufactured African prints and new digitally produced fashion “calendars,” displaying a profusion of new exuberant African-print styles. By the late 1990s, inexpensive fashion calendars featuring the latest African-print styles began to appear on workshop walls of Ghanaian seamstresses and tailors who specialized in women’s fashion. The photographic realism achieved by new digital publishing technologies proved especially valuable for conveying the intricate stylistic details and inventive combinations of African prints, solid-color cottons, and lace that express Ghanaian women’s African-print fashion aesthetic. Importantly, the twenty-first-century infusion of energy from the youth-driven boom in “fanciful” African-print <i>kaba</i>-and-<i>slit</i> styles, seen in 2007 and 2010 fashion calendars, attests to the enduring vitality of African-print fashion. By 2013, youthful African-print “straight dresses” also began appearing in fashion calendars with titles such as <i>New Generation, Living Young and Free</i>, and <i>Lady Gaga</i>, further expanding the innovative scope of grassroots African-print style.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.021 |
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".