Connoisseurship Consumption Community and Its Dynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: This study aims to identify and explain the forces and tensions between the members of the connoisseurship consumption community and its dynamics. Design/methodology/approach: Adopting a naturalistic inquiry approach, we immersed ourselves in the field, visiting and observing consumers and professionals in independent coffee shops in North America: Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, and New York from August 2013 to July 2014. Findings: The research describes the connoisseurship consumption community and explains its forces, which are education, emulation and tensions between the members of the community. Originality/value: Our findings explain the amateur consumer’s behavior and the relationship of these amateurs with professionals and with the public during their consumption practices. We help to advance the study of heterogeneous consumption communities by revealing the tensions between the members of the community and the production of subcultural and social capital. Our research contributes to the consumer culture field by increasing knowledge of this social consumption phenomenon.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.164 | 0.025 |
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 it