MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856778274 · doi:10.3138/topia.27.133

Negotiating Palestine through the Familial Gaze: A Photographic (Post)memory Project

2012· article· en· W1856778274 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nawal Musleh-Motut

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMirroringMnemonicPalestineGazeMandateIdentity (music)NegotiationMandatory PalestineObject (grammar)SociologyVisual artsMedia studiesPsychologyPsychoanalysisArtHistoryLawAestheticsPolitical scienceComputer scienceCommunicationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses a familial (post)memory project in which I interrogate my investment in a photograph of my father as a young boy in Jerusalem, Palestine. Taken in approximately 1947, during the British Mandate and the inter-communal wars that led to the creation of Israel in 1948, the photograph has fascinated me since childhood. But why has this been? What does the photograph demand of me, and what do I desire from it? As this paper illustrates, answering these questions becomes an exercise in intergenerational understanding and dialogue, as I am forced to negotiate both the burdensome Palestinian identity conferred on me by my parents and my ill-fitting Canadian identity. Ultimately, I realize that this photograph mediates my current reality. While it does not provide photographic evidence of the traumatic historical moments my father experienced in Palestine, it does strike me with conflicting familial gazes: one of loss and absence, the other of mirroring and self-recognition. By applying the theoretical concepts presented by Roland Barthes and Marianne Hirsch, I show that this photograph functions both as an object of my father’s memory and as a mnemonic device of my postmemory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207