Cultural Festivals and Family Cohesion: Highlighting an Understudied Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural festivals are a significant aspect of social life, providing communities with opportunities for celebration, identity expression, and social cohesion. While there has been extensive research on the economic and social impacts of festivals, there is a pressing need to delve deeper into how these events influence family cohesion and dynamics. This letter aims to highlight the importance of studying the impact of cultural festivals on family relationships, drawing on existing literature to advocate for more comprehensive research in this area. In conclusion, cultural festivals play a significant role in promoting family cohesion by offering shared experiences that reinforce social bonds and cultural identity. However, there is a need for more focused research on how these events impact family dynamics across different cultural contexts. By addressing this gap, we can better understand the potential of cultural festivals to strengthen family relationships and promote social cohesion. We urge researchers and practitioners in the field of psychosociology to prioritize studies on the impact of cultural festivals on family cohesion. Such research will not only contribute to the academic understanding of family dynamics but also inform the design and implementation of festivals to maximize their positive impacts on families.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".