MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414706025 · doi:10.15173/glj.v16i3.6908

Global Sociologists for Palestine: Campaigning in Solidarity with Palestine within the International Sociological Association

2025· article· en· W4414706025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rana Sukarieh, Camilo Tamayo Gómez, Chris Tilly

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Labour Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited Nations Development Programme
KeywordsSolidarityPalestineAssociation (psychology)Social solidaritySociological research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the time of this writing in late September 2025, the official death toll from the two-year Israeli genocide on Gaza was at about 66,000, a large majority of these civilians.The deliberate killing of all segments of the population, the destruction of homes and infrastructure (including hospitals, schools, and the sewage system), the blockage and deprivation of food and medicine, and the forced displacement of Gazans all constitute elements of genocide.The International Court of Justice is hearing a case charging Israel with genocide (Borger, 2025), and growing numbers of genocide experts, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, have characterised Israel's ongoing actions as genocide.In a separate case, the same Court found Israel's government guilty of apartheid and illegal occupation in 2024 (Baldwin, 2024).International academic associations, including the International Sociological Association (ISA), have issued statements deploring the killing of both Palestinian and Israeli civilians in October 2023, but have done little to actually hold the Israeli government and its institutions to account-until June 2025.That month, ISA leadership, under pressure from its members, opted to suspend the Israeli Sociological Society from membership for its complicity with the Israeli military apparatus and for its silence in a time of genocide and war crimes (ISA, 2025a).To our knowledge, this was the first successful campaign to boycott Israel at an international academic association.Global Sociologists for Palestine (GS4P), a new network which we and others recently founded, pushed the ISA hard to take this stand.The winding path that led to this outcome holds useful lessons for labour (and other) scholars trying to concretely support Palestine.Most of our GS4P members, probably like many GLJ readers, have been active on our campuses and in our communities in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle against Israeli settler colonialism, occupation and wars.For decades, Palestine solidarity movements around the world have concluded that boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) strategies, aimed at isolating Israel's government and institutions economically, politically, and socially, are the most effective way to exert leverage.These BDS campaigns were inspired by the movement to boycott South Africa that combined with in-country resistance to end South African apartheid in 1994.Global BDS actions against Israel have accelerated during Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, including military embargoes, divestment from Israeli companies and businesses facilitating Israel's occupation and war, and downgrading of diplomatic ties (BDS National Committee, 2025).As scholars of labour and collective action, we are particularly encouraged that Moroccan and European dockworkers across twelve countries have refused to handle arms destined for Israel (Ziadah and Fox-Hodess, 2025).As academics, one of the ways we can contribute is through the academic boycott of Israel and its institutions.The academic and cultural boycott of South Africa was an integral part of the isolation of the apartheid regime.National academic associations have taken steps toward

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.017
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Labour JournalSame topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207