Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Special Issue, this article adopts a methodological orientation that works through and with international law’s cultural legal archive. It focuses on one colonial literary artifact that shows the historical tension between colonization and revolution and examines the traces of those constitutive relations in the present. The artifact in question is an intriguing literary excursion by a British colonial-era judge in Palestine entitled Palestine Parodies. It mocks the legal life of Mandate Palestine through the use of comics, puns, and riddles. This raises a number of provocative themes relating to Mandate law, revolution, humor, and humiliation. The article reads this artifact against the history of the Arab revolt in Palestine, which lasted for three years (1936–1939) and was violently crushed by the British forces. It engages in a detailed exegesis of a number of images drawn from this document, arguing that closely parsing these “humorous” illustrations and drawings from a different era assembles and curates two competing stories. One story is about how colonial legal structures, manifested in the form of the comedic, collided with a second story that narrates the history of struggle, refusal, and revolt. Through curating competing images, jokes, and stories, this visual and literary tension in the analysis gazes upon history to recall and rekindle revolutionary possibilities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".