MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411541633 · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115552

The role of volitional reconsumption in the lives of gay men living with concealable stigmatized identities

2025· article· en· W4411541633 on OpenAlexaff
Vikram Kapoor, Russell W. Belk, Wendy Hein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAid for Cancer Research
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volitional reconsumption involves consumers intentionally and actively seeking to relive specific consumption experiences. Various factors in consumers’ personal lives, such as identity transitions, personal crises, and different life stages, can influence their reconsumption experiences. Based on an oral history approach, our study investigates the role of volitional reconsumption among middle-aged gay men in Ireland. These men, living with concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs), have experienced severe stigma from the Irish Catholic church for most of their lives. Our study reveals that for our participants, the volitional reconsumption of specific objects and practices goes beyond simple recreation; they serve as a safeguard against the pain of stigma stemming from a homophobic church and society. Specifically, their volitional reconsumption experiences serve four main purposes: evading reality, giving a sense of permanence, providing power through contagion, and enabling identity reification. These purposes are achieved through four types of reconsumption: regressive, progressive, relational, and reflective, involving the use of specific objects and practices. The theoretical contribution of our study pertains to linking the growing field of consumer stigma, in our case concealable stigma, to volitional reconsumption and its benefits to consumers.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business ResearchSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207