Toward a better understanding of the embodied experience of disability: A qualitative investigation of consumers with olfactory impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, marketing research has focused on the inclusion of consumers with disabilities, identifying environmental barriers that hinder their participation. However, despite the attention given to olfactory impairments during the COVID-19 pandemic, they remain underexplored. The embodied experience of disability, understood as the way individuals live and perceive their bodies in interaction with their environment, remains underexplored, often overshadowed by studies on the design of commercial spaces. This article aims to fill this gap by addressing two questions: (1) What forms of embodied experience are associated with olfactory impairments among consumers? (2) How do these forms of embodied experience shape their consumption behaviors? An analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews with consumers experiencing hyposmia (partial loss of smell) or anosmia (complete loss of smell) reveals four forms of embodied experience: diminished, intrusive, forgotten, and elusive perception. These findings shed light on the impact of olfactory impairments and lead to recommendations for adapting marketing strategies to enhance the experience of affected individuals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".