Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examines how Palestinians defy displacement and erasure from the history books and state archives Offers an interdisciplinary approach through history, anthropology, spatial analysis, literary studies, art Based on an assemblege of sources: archival, literary, ethnographic and oral research, spatial analysis, material Engages with a variety of themes: settler colonialism, urban studies, violence and memory, refugeehood and diaspora, and the production of history Multi-sited study: Jaffa and Tel Aviv (Israel), Palestinian refugee camps (the West Bank), Cape Town (South Africa), Toronto (Canada). Displacement and Erasure in Palestine : The Politics of Hope explores the ways in which Palestinians negotiate physical and symbolic erasures by producing their own archives and historical narratives. With a focus on the city of Jaffa and its displaced Palestinian population, Noa Shaindlinger argues that the Israeli state ‘buried’ histories of mass expulsions and spatial appropriations. Based on a wide-variety of sources, this book brings together archival, literary, ethnographic and oral research to engage with ideas of settler colonialism and the production of history, violence and memory, refugee-hood and diaspora. This multi-sited study traces Jaffa’s refugee experience beyond 1948 to the West Bank and the diaspora in Toronto and Cape Town, re-inscribing the erased experience of Palestinians into an account of Israeli state practices of dispossession. By integrating rigorous archival research, ethnographic fieldwork, literary and spatial analysis, the book reveals Palestinian’s (and their Israeli-Jewish allies’) creative responses that challenge displacement and argue for their right to belong to their homeland and their city.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".