Determinants of online apparel mass customization: a decade in review
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
Purpose Mass customization is a production process that allows consumers to customize products from an array of options to suit their preferences and needs and benefit from large-scale production efficiencies. In recent years, several apparel retailers have integrated customization into their online presence. While the benefits of online apparel mass customization (OAMC) are apparent, factors that determine the usage of the process are many. Therefore, it is important to explore these factors and understand the relationships between them and the impact on the intention to use OAMC. Design/methodology/approach A review of studies published in the last decade was conducted through the Scopus, Web of Science and JSTOR databases in September 2023. Peer-reviewed research articles published in the English language were included. These studies were carried out in the United States of America, Canada, Korea and China and addressed motivations and antecedents of OAMC technology. Findings The data were extracted, and the findings were synthesized. The review process enabled us to examine several theories and determinants of OAMC. The latter were categorized into the following themes: “consumer personality and psychology”, “consumer perceptions”, “consumer behaviour determinants” and “process, experience and product”. The influence of consumer personality traits, psychogenic needs, characteristics and other facilitating conditions emerged through the review. Originality/value The purpose of this paper is to study the various determinants of OAMC and thereby provide valuable information to businesses in OAMC domains to improve customized processes, understand consumers' motivations and develop marketing strategies that improve overall satisfaction with OAMC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it