Sense of community and perceptions of festival social impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relation between psychological sense of community (SOC) and perceived social impacts of festival events. Design/methodology/approach – SOC was measured using the four-dimensional Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS) and the Festival Social Impact Attitudes Scale (FSIAS) was used to measure perceived impacts. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires provided to residents of Caldwell, Texas following the annual Kolache Festival. Findings – Results revealed a relation between two dimensions of the BSCS, needs fulfillment and influence, and the way in which impacts are perceived. Specifically, needs fulfillment was positively related to social benefits and individual benefits. Needs fulfillment was negatively related to social costs. Influence related to impacts in the same manner. Research limitations/implications – This research provides support for a four-dimensional conceptualization of SOC and highlights the importance of examining the relation between psycho-social variables and perceptions of impact. Further research in additional settings is recommended. Practical implications – Results suggest that individuals with greater SOC are better able to perceive festival impacts and could be mobilized by festival administrators to address festival issues. Further research in additional settings is recommended. Originality/value – Empirical explorations of psychological SOC have been common in a range of community settings but have not received much attention with in the festival literature. Exploring how SOC is related to festival experiences can enhance theory development within this field of study as well as provide needed insight for festival administrators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".