MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408969550 · doi:10.1177/20563051251330667

Fashioning Identity: A Technocultural Analysis of Igbo Women Designers’ Self-Presentation on Instagram

2025· article· en· W4408969550 on OpenAlexaff
Joy C. Enyinnaya

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Media + Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgboPresentation (obstetrics)Identity (music)Gender studiesSociologyPsychologyArtAestheticsLinguisticsMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using African Technocultural Feminist Theory (ATFT), this study explored how Nigerian Igbo women fashion designers use Instagram to perform digital identities. While there is extensive literature on self-presentation on social media, there is limited research on African women’s self-presentation from a feminist perspective. The Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis (CTDA) of Instagram posts and interview data revealed that Instagram’s photo affordances allowed designers to showcase their intricate designs and facilitate the cultural digitization of Igbo-centric fashion. The result of the three-phased analysis revealed Nigerian Igbo women fashion designers employed visual aesthetics and authenticity in their entrepreneurial online presentation. The study also highlighted the reemergence of Nsibidi , a long-lost ideography within Igbo culture, facilitated by Instagram. In addition, the study revealed that Nigerian Igbo women fashion designers use Instagram to challenge societal norms related to femininity and womanhood. This study addresses the need to examine African women’s digital identities through a feminist lens, considering the impact of overlapping power structures on their self-representational choices on social media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Media + SocietySame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207