Developing the Family Cognitive Sovereignty Framework: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Agriculture consumes nearly 70% of global freshwater, yet traditional irrigation systems are only 35–40% efficient, leading to significant water wastage. This research presents Stage 2 of Crescera, an AI- and IoT-based smart irrigation and crop disease detection system designed to improve water management and agricultural productivity. Stage 1 successfully introduced an AI-IoT platform featuring a three-parameter Water Need Index (WNI), CNN-based leaf disease detection, dual AI/manual operation, and a multilingual interface. However, it faced limitations such as processing bottlenecks on the ESP8266, limited sensor inputs, support for only four grape diseases, and the lack of offline functionality. To address these issues, Stage 2 introduced several major enhancements: Upgraded hardware from ESP8266 to a dual-core ESP32 with FreeRTOS for better multitasking. Expanded the WNI from three to five parameters by adding soil temperature and soil pH measurements. Replaced the basic CNN with a ResNet-34 + CBAM attention model, increasing disease detection from 4 to 8 crop diseases. Developed a Progressive Web Application (PWA) with offline support, real-time visualization, and multilingual access. Conducted a 45-day field trial on rice, wheat, and sugarcane to validate system performance. The enhanced system uses a five-parameter WNI (soil moisture, ambient temperature, humidity, soil temperature, and soil pH) to make intelligent irrigation decisions. A hysteresis control mechanism reduces unnecessary pump switching, improving system stability and energy efficiency. For disease detection, the ResNet-34 + CBAM model was trained on 12,400 leaf images from public datasets and field-collected samples, enabling accurate recognition of eight plant diseases across multiple crops. Key Results Irrigation accuracy: 94.3% (up from ~91% in Stage 1). Disease detection accuracy: 97.1% (up from 95%). Water savings: 35% compared with conventional irrigation. Response latency: Reduced to 1.2 seconds (40% faster than Stage 1). Pump cycling: Reduced by 41% using hysteresis control. Offline functionality: PWA supports 72-hour local data storage. Field validation: Successfully tested over 45 days on rice, wheat, and sugarcane.

Introduction

This study introduces the concept of Family Cognitive Sovereignty (FCS), defined as the collective right and responsibility of families to think independently, form beliefs, make decisions, and transmit values without undue external influence. The research argues that in today's digital age, families face unprecedented cognitive threats from algorithm-driven platforms, surveillance capitalism, ideological pressures, peer influence, consumerism, and cultural drift, all of which gradually erode their ability to govern their own thinking.

The paper begins by explaining that cognitive sovereignty—the ability to think freely and resist manipulation—is increasingly threatened by digital technologies designed to capture attention and shape beliefs. Neuroscience shows that the human brain is naturally susceptible to repeated external stimuli, while sociology and cultural neuroscience demonstrate that cognition develops through social interaction. Since the family is the first and most influential cognitive environment, its weakening has profound implications for children's development and society as a whole.

Problem Statement

The study identifies a major theoretical gap: although concepts such as individual cognitive autonomy, information sovereignty, family systems, and media literacy have been widely studied, no existing framework treats the family as a collective cognitive agent with the right and responsibility to govern its shared knowledge, beliefs, and values. This absence leaves families vulnerable to external cognitive influences that shape children's beliefs before parents can transmit their own values.

Research Objectives

The study aims to:

• Develop a conceptual framework for Family Cognitive Sovereignty (FCS).
• Identify the core components, threats, and outcomes associated with FCS.
• Determine the conditions that strengthen and sustain family cognitive sovereignty by integrating insights from cognitive science, psychology, philosophy, education, and family communication.

Methodology

A systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Researchers searched major academic databases and reviewed 100 scholarly sources published between 1990 and 2025. The literature was organized into five thematic domains:

• Cognitive sovereignty and autonomy
• Digital overload and algorithmic influence
• Family systems and identity
• Cultural drift and intergenerational transmission
• Family resilience and epistemic design

Key Findings

The thematic analysis revealed several important insights:

• Cognitive autonomy has traditionally been viewed as an individual concept, while the family's collective cognitive role has been largely overlooked.
• Digital platforms and algorithms intentionally influence attention, beliefs, and behaviour through personalized content, surveillance capitalism, and information overload.
• Families function as interconnected cognitive systems, where shared narratives, traditions, and communication shape identity and moral reasoning.
• Cultural drift and social media increasingly replace traditional parent-to-child value transmission with peer influence, influencers, and algorithmically selected content.
• Family resilience, strong communication, shared values, and critical media literacy help families resist external cognitive manipulation.

Theoretical Gap

The review concludes that no existing theory integrates cognitive autonomy, digital influence, family systems, resilience, and cultural transmission into a unified model explaining how families can preserve their cognitive independence. This gap motivates the development of the Family Cognitive Sovereignty (FCS) framework.

Family Cognitive Sovereignty Framework

The proposed FCS framework defines family cognitive sovereignty as having three dimensions:

• Rights: Families have the right to govern their own cognitive and value-formation processes.
• Responsibility: Families must actively cultivate and protect their shared beliefs and knowledge.
• Relationship: Families should engage with external information critically rather than isolate themselves from society.

The framework views families as cognitive communities that collectively create meaning through discussion, traditions, shared experiences, and intentional value transmission. Rather than simply resisting external influence, cognitively sovereign families actively develop their own interpretive frameworks, encourage critical thinking, and practice deliberate decision-making.

Threats to Family Cognitive Sovereignty

The study identifies six major external threats:

• Information overload
• Ideological pressure
• Algorithmic manipulation
• Peer and social influence
• Consumerism
• Cultural drift

These forces do not determine family behaviour but require conscious recognition and critical management to preserve independent thinking.

Conclusion

This study addressed a significant and generative gap in interdisciplinary scholarship by introducing and theorising Family Cognitive Sovereignty as a unified conceptual framework. Through a systematic and thematic review of 100 peer-reviewed sources, the study established that while individual cognitive autonomy, digital influence, family systems dynamics, cultural transmission, and family resilience have each been theorised in depth, no prior framework had integrated these dimensions into a coherent account of the family as a sovereign epistemic community. The proposed FCS model — comprising five cyclical stages grounded in six foundational pillars and oriented toward five sovereign outcomes — offers a theoretically integrative and practically generative contribution to the fields of family studies, cognitive science, media ecology, and cultural psychology. The study also demonstrates that the threats to family cognitive sovereignty are structurally organised, financially motivated, and technically advanced, necessitating an equally methodical and intentional response. Future research should concentrate on developing assessment instruments for each phase of the cycle, examining design and policy interventions that support rather than compromise family-level epistemic autonomy, and conducting empirical validation of the FCS framework across a range of socioeconomic and cultural contexts. This study demonstrates that a sovereign family mentality is grounded in reality, open to new information, and committed to everyone\'s well-being.

References

[1] Anderson, C. A., Bushman, B. J., Bartholow, B. D., Cantor, J., Christakis, D., Coyne, S. M., Donnerstein, E., Brockmyer, J. F., Gentile, D. A., Green, C. S., Huesmann, R., Hust, S., Krahe, B., Linz, D., Malamuth, N. M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., & Warburton, W. (2017). Screen violence and youth behaviour. Pediatrics, 140(Suppl 2), S142-S147. [2] Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents\' uses of media for self-socialisation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537054 [3] Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen Institute. [4] Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004 [5] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. [6] Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 [7] Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781 [8] Bengtson, V. L., Biblarz, T. J., & Roberts, R. E. L. (2002). How families still matter: A longitudinal study of youth in two generations. Cambridge University Press. [9] Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x [10] Boss, P. (2006). Loss, trauma, and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. W. W. Norton. [11] Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson. [12] Boyd, D. (2014). It is complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. [13] Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press. [14] Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. [15] Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Polity Press. [16] Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. W. W. Norton. [17] Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003 [18] Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton University Press. [19] Christman, J. (2004). Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philosophical Studies, 117(1), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000014532.56797.5e [20] Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. MIT Press. [21] Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7 [22] Clark, L. S. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01391.x [23] Clifford, W. K. (1999). The ethics of belief. In T. J. Madigan (Ed.), The ethics of belief and other essays (pp. 70–96). Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1877) [24] Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press. [25] Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813479782 [26] Cross, C., & Zhang, X. (2022). Nonresident social fathering in African American single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(5), 1250–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12837 [27] Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487 [28] Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. SAGE Publications. [29] Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. [30] Engel, P. (2000). Introduction: The philosophical significance of norms of belief. In P. Engel (Ed.), Believing and accepting (pp. 1–34). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3806-3_1 [31] Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). W. H. Freeman. [32] Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organisation science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974 [33] Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685 [34] Fiese, B. H., Tomcho, T. J., Douglas, M., Josephs, K., Poltrock, S., & Baker, T. (1999). A review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals: Cause for celebration? Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 653–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.653 [35] Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006 [36] Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024717 [37] Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder. [38] Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. [39] Galvin, K. M., Braithwaite, D. O., Bylund, C. L., & Schrodt, P. (2019). Family communication: Cohesion and change (10th ed.). Routledge. [40] Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x [41] Gottman, J. M., & DeClaire, J. (1997). Raising an emotionally intelligent child. Simon & Schuster. [42] Gromova, E., & Tome, E. (2024). Research methods: Is agile different? European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, 115–120. [43] Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. European Research Council.Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books. [44] Hahn, U., & Merdes, C. (2024). Knowledge through social networks: Accuracy, error, and polarisation. PLoS One, 19(1), e0294815. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294815 [45] Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4 [46] Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalising society. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.10.1111 [47] Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. The Aspen Institute. [48] Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture\'s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [49] Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press. [50] James, W. (1956). The will to believe. In The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (pp. 1–31). Dover. (Original work published 1897) [51] Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MIT Press. [52] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [53] Khine, N. Y., Boonmongkon, P., & Pradubmook-Sherer, P. (2021). No lecture, I am bored: What messages do young males in Myanmar want to learn from sexuality education on social media? https://core.ac.uk/download/475280133.pdf [54] Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001 [55] Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00260.x [56] Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. The Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490280152 [57] Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parental mediation of children\'s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437396 [58] Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2017). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style. LSE London. [59] Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164 [60] MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press. [61] Maheswari, P. (2023). A new approach to the parental mediation theory from adolescents\' perspective: Inclusion of participatory use and participatory learning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 69(3), 215–239. [62] Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 [63] McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. Guilford Press. [64] McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1993). Families coping with illness: The resiliency model of family stress, adjustment, and adaptation. In C. B. Danielson, B. Hamel-Bissell, & P. Winstead-Fry (Eds.), Families, health, and illness (pp. 21–63). Mosby. [65] Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to evaluating online credibility. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x [66] Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press. [67] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [68] Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247 [69] Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4502_1 [70] Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. [71] Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press. [72] Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00144 [73] Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00003.x [74] Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press. [75] Potter, W. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. SAGE Publications. [76] Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. [77] Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press. [78] Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M²: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Report, 1–85. [79] Robinson, A. (2019). Acculturation and millennial migration: A cultural congruence framework. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 53(2), 126–146. [80] Romer, D., Jamieson, P. E., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03007.x [81] Rosen, L. D. (2012). iDisorder: Understanding our obsession with technology and overcoming its hold on us. Palgrave Macmillan. [82] Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Science and Behaviour Books. [83] Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press. [84] Silverblatt, A. (2014). Media literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages (4th ed.). Praeger. [85] Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460. https://doi.org/10.1086/231213 [86] Singh, M. (2024). Examining the relationship between adolescent self-esteem and social media addiction: A comprehensive study. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 15(3), 430–433. [87] Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 [88] Southwell, B. G., & Thorson, E. A. (2015). The prevalence, consequence, and remedy of misinformation in mass media systems. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12168 [89] Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press. [90] Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20445 [91] Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity are synthesised. Cambridge University Press. [92] Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press. [93] Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press. [94] Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press. [95] Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press. [96] Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press. [97] Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press. [98] Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today\'s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy, and completely unprepared for adulthood. Atria Books. [99] Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Hermanns, J., & De Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and validating the Perceived Parental Media Mediation Scale. Media Psychology, 16(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.803824 [100] Valkenburg, P. M., & Patti, M. V. (2022). Social media use and well-being: A review. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.006 [101] Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A. L., & Marseille, N. M. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: Instructive mediation, restriction mediation, and social co-viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159909364474 [102] Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press. [103] Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [104] Walsh, F. (2016). Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1154035 [105] Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Stanford History Education Group Research Paper, 1–25. [106] Wu, T. (2016). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. Knopf. [107] Zagzebski, L. T. (1996). Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge University Press. [108] Zagzebski, L. T. (2012). Epistemic authority: A theory of trust, authority, and autonomy in belief. Oxford University Press. [109] Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Bhargabi Hazarika, Prof. Arup Barman. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.