'Fashioning Identity': Exploring Psychologic and Social Implications of Wearing Fashion in a Grounded Theory Analysis of Five Female 'Fashionistas'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearing fashion is a contemporary practice with profound economic, social and psychological implications for its consumers.This study investigates how fashion enthusiasts understand fashion and the social and psychological needs it satisfies.The data, analyzed through the lens of Grounded Theory, comes from 5 semi-structured interviews of women who identify as "Fashionistas".The data revealed that Fashionistas use fashion to stabilise their individual and social identities by strengthening social bonds, boosting mood and comfort, and fitting in different social situations.Identity emerges from this study not as a monolithic structure but as a context-dependent entity with a constantly shifting balance.The author suggests the everchanging pace of fashion can be a tool in supporting the shifting balance of identity.Furthermore, the study investigated the centrality of ambition and fantasy for fashion consumers and proposed a model to explain how such fantasies are construed and conveyed.Understanding these mechanisms can shed light on the value of fashion for the well-being of its consumers and suggest positive and profitable ways to optimise the business and market of the fashion industry.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".