Negotiating Authenticity: The Application of Fashion Conservation Decision-Making to the Treatment of an Altered Garment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fashion conservation as a facet of textile conservation incorporates a values-based approach that acknowledges the fashionable identity of an object when making treatment decisions. Use of this ethical basis is effective when navigating the competing values of clothing items in a conservation context, which are frequently altered before they enter a museum collection. The treatment of a modified 1920s dress within the Fashion and Textile Collection at the University of Delaware (UD FTC) navigated conflicting design and functional values by discerning the original material composition of the dress and the timeline of alterations. Ultimately the slip was removed, but other possible changes to the original construction were allowed to remain. Contemporary conversations in the conservation of fashion objects were consulted to develop a treatment approach that prioritized elements of the dress connected to the 1920s fashion zeitgeist while maintaining foundational conservation principles of responsible intervention.
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 | 0.051 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".