A Becoming Creative Process: Études on Experimental Fragmentation and Reconstruction in Fashion Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Major Research Project (MRP) employs a conceptual framework composed of fifteen (15) experimental “Études” exploring concepts of fragmentation and reconstruction in fashion design. Using becoming-theory and unbecoming-theory as a lens, it intends to open a dialogue on gender, the body, and sustainability. This MRP undertakes an exploration of the complexities within the particular forms of oppression experienced by women. Furthermore, this creative research offers analytic reflections on patriarchy through deconstruction of uniforms. This project explores the limits of fashion, art, and critical theory. In doing so, it aims to blur the boundaries between femininity and masculinity. With a focus on process-as-knowing, this MRP reveals how interdisciplinary practice-led methodology can influence and give agency to one’s embodied creative practice. By making “becoming” experimental accessories and garments, the autoethnography of documentation methods will act as a vessel to support and contain the creative process as interpreted through intuition.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".