From Wall 1.0 to Wall 2.0: Graffiti, Social Media, and Ideological Acts of Resistance and Recognition Among Palestinian Refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing as an ideological act of resistance and recognition among members of the socially disenfranchised has been engaged with in myriad contested political and cultural terrains. Historically, for Palestinian refugees living under conditions of Israeli occupation, expressions of resistance and recognition were visually and textually inscribed through provocative displays of graffiti on the very separatist wall erected by their occupiers. More recently, however, these acts have been (re)articulated through various forms of social media. We capture this phenomenon as being one dimension of transmedia storytelling, and specifically as a consolidation of, what we are calling here, Wall 1.0 and Wall 2.0. We argue that this consolidation has engendered significant implications for how ideological acts of resistance and recognition among disempowered subjects ought to be conceptualized. Indeed, this consolidation marks a necessary move in the contest over place from geographically constrained physical spaces to spreadable and editable digital spaces. In terms of theoretical contribution, it has illuminated how discursive political claims are transitioning from a state of temporality and attributed ownership to a state of permanence and coproduction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".