Breaking Boundaries: Re-assembling the Refugee Camp through Home-making Practices of the Camp Dwellers. \nExamining Refugee Agency in Sustainable Processes and Assemblage Formations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars often study refugee camps as hierarchical structures, with a predominant focus on the authorities in charge of the camps (i.e., Agier, 2010; Ticktin, 2011). However, this approach often overlooks the role of refugees as key co-creators of the camps. This thesis seeks to explore the agency of refugees in the camp development by examining their everyday practices that give camp dwellers a sense of belonging (i.e., home-making practices). Specifically, I seek to shift the analysis of refugee camps by placing refugees at the center of the inquiry. Through three manuscript essays, I explore the following research themes: 1- The range of home-making practices that are mobilized in the refugee camp, 2- The level of agency the refugees have to shape, conceive and imagine their own living spaces and the factors or determinants that influence this agency, 3- Finally, I seek to understand how the camps are spatially and temporally constructed and how this is defined by exchanges, interactions and flows within and beyond their boundaries. Drawing on theories of home-making (Brun & Fabos, 2015; Elmasri, 2020; Dudley, 2011), assemblage (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; De Landa, 2006; McFarlane, 2009; Dovey, 2010), and refugee agency (Ramadan, 2012; Abourahmeh, 2015), and utilizing a methodology that blends empirical and archival research, this study examines three Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan: Baqa’a, Al-Husn, and Talbiyeh. The findings demonstrate that refugees exercise agency at both the individual dwelling and camp-wide scale. The evidence reveals that through engaging in different everyday tasks (such as gardening, masonry, textile crafts, etc.) the refugees develop a deep sense of place and identity that transcends the physical space of the camp. However, the ability to do so is conditioned by the resources, social and political networks and geographic attributes of their respective camp space. The ultimate objective of this thesis is to identify new solutions that engage refugees as co-creators in camp assemblage, thereby improving living conditions in refugee camps.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".