A Model Subject: Problematizing the 'Beauty Sells' Ideal in Fashion Marketing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Since the introduction of mannequins and models in fashion, the standard of beauty in fashion has been thin, tall, white, and conventional bodies, representing the normative ideals of perfection of the time. This Major Research Project challenged the assumption in fashion marketing of how 'beauty' sells; in essence, how clothing has to be draped on a conventionally beautiful and thin model to appear attractive and marketable to the consumer. Using body mapping as a unique arts-based methodology, the study observed the affective response of three participants in St. John's, Newfoundland to two series of fashion advertisements portraying beauty standards versus othered bodies. The resulting body maps expressed that today's consumers want to feel recognized and validated by advertisements — they need to be able to see aspects of themselves in fashion media in order to truly relate to the brand in question. This research contributes to the field of fashion marketing by offering a method of increasing consumers' positive attitudes towards brands, thus leading to greater brand equity.</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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".