Decolonial Approaches to Archival Appraisal within the Context of Archival Apartheid in Occupied Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the critical role of decolonial approaches in archival appraisal within the context of “Archival Apartheid” in Occupied Palestine. Archives, often perceived as neutral repositories, are deeply entwined with power dynamics, serving as tools for shaping historical memory and cultural identity. By exploring the discriminatory practices of Israeli state archives, this study highlights how colonial systems marginalize Palestinian voices, erase histories, and perpetuate systemic inequities. Drawing on decolonial archival theories, the paper underscores the transformative potential of Resistance Archives in preserving marginalized narratives and fostering cultural sovereignty. The discussion extends to practical applications of decolonial appraisal, emphasizing participatory models that engage affected communities in archival decision- making. It incorporates case studies, such as the Gaza Genocide Digital Archive and the Palestine Remembered al-Nakba Oral History Project, which demonstrate the efficacy of these methods in safeguarding Palestinian histories against erasure. The analysis also addresses challenges, including political resistance, resource constraints, and ethical dilemmas, while identifying opportunities for solidarity, cultural restoration, and innovation. The study argues that adopting decolonial appraisal practices not only disrupts colonial frameworks but also positions archives as spaces for justice, representation, and empowerment. Ultimately, this article asserts that decolonial approaches to archival appraisal are indispensable for countering Archival Apartheid, preserving cultural heritage, and advancing equity in historical representation. The findings contribute to a broader discourse on the intersection of archives, power, and resistance, offering insights for global archival practices committed to decolonization and social justice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".