MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406751387 · doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2025.103054

Decolonial queering sport and movement in Palestine

2025· article· en· W4406751387 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Nachman

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Studies International Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalestineMovement (music)SociologyGender studiesArtVisual artsHistoryAncient historyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sport and human movement can be expressions of embodied freedom in response to the violence of settler colonialism that reproduces racism, transphobia, ableism, and other systems of supremacy (McGuire-Adams et al., 2022). For example, Palestinians and allies have taken up direct action through the body, in a wave of global protests against the Israeli State's genocidal occupation of Palestine (Al Jazeera, 2023a). In this paper, I offer two arguments: 1) decolonial queer theory illuminates the racialized and sexualized tactics of the Israeli occupation; and 2) a decolonial queer framework within kinesiology can serve as a tool for analyzing the intersections of movement, identity, and decolonization in research. To support my argument, first I provide background research on the occupation of Palestine (Said, 1979). Second, I synthesize literature on decolonial queer theories concerning the liberation of Palestine, since “sexual and bodily freedom cannot be separated from the fight against Israeli colonialism” (Alqaisiya et al., 2023, p. 115). Third, the paper provides an analysis of sport and movement in Palestine using decolonial queer theory. For kinesiology and sport sociology scholars interested in decolonial work, looking to decolonial queer theories can provide intersectional and liberatory frameworks of analysis that attend to the sexualized tactics of Israeli settler colonization.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s Studies International ForumSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207