MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparative Study of Sino-US Festival Culture

2010· article· en· W1692896701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing-xia Lü

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEthnologySociologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Festival culture is an important carrier of the emotion and spirit of a nation. The study of holiday culture is an indispensable part of the study of a national culture. Since both American culture and Chinese culture have the characteristics of diversity and pluralism, a comparative study of them is meaningful. This paper studies some of the major festivals in both China and the United States of America, compares the similarities and the differences in the festival practices and trys to reveal the national personality, cultural value orientation, and the national spirit of them for the purpose of a better understanding and harmonious developmeng of the two cultures. Keywords: festival culture; comparative study; Sino-USResume: La culture festival est un vecteur important de l'emotion et l'esprit d'une nation. L'etude de la culture de vacances est un element indispensable de l'etude d'une culture nationale. Comme la culture americaine et la culture chinoises ont toutes les deux les caracteristiques de la diversite et du pluralisme, une etude comparative d'entre eux est significative. Cet article etudie plusieurs grands festivaux en Chine et aux Etats-Unis, compare les similitudes et les differences dans les pratiques de festival et essaie de reveler la personnalite nationale, l'orientation des valeurs culturelles et l'esprit national pour une meilleure comprehension et un developpement harmonieux de ces deux cultures.Mots-cles: culture festival; etude comparative; sino-americain

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207