MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408320657 · doi:10.1111/anti.13136

The Conditions of the Working Class in 1960s Beirut: Fire and Everyday Struggles in Karantina

2025· article· en· W4408320657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Diala Lteif

Bibliographic record

VenueAntipode · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaOntario Trillium FoundationPierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Working classSociologyEveryday lifeGender studiesAestheticsPolitical scienceArtEpistemologyLawPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, I examine the spatial processes of class formation within informal urban spaces. To do so, I consider Karantina in the 1960s, an outgrowth of one of the oldest refugee camps in the world situated in northeastern Beirut, Lebanon. I focus on the struggles of those living in precarious informal shacks, known as tanaké, who repeatedly fought against arson likely instigated by local landowners seeking to evict them. This analysis underscores the decisive role material conditions play in fostering class consciousness among a diverse population, primarily composed of factory and informal workers, as they assert their “right to the city”. I argue that these galvanising confrontations, experienced as recurrent displacement by fire, catalysed a political struggle that transformed this group from a class‐in‐itself into a class‐for‐itself. A socio‐spatial analysis of the material living conditions of the working class, defined by everyday struggles, is essential to understanding political subjectivity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntipodeSame topicMiddle East Politics and SocietyFrench-language works237,207