The Framing of Myth in the Creation of a Palestinian Identity: Hamas, Fatah and Childrenâs Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an exploratory examination of identity construction and children’s media, with a focus on the Palestinian political groups of Fatah and Hamas. It looks at how children’s media are framed within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It examines how internal and external social factors contribute to identity formation and the interaction among these elements during times of conflict and war.\nThis thesis hypothesizes that both Fatah and Hamas use various myths to differing degrees in order to frame their conception of a Palestinian identity. Specifically, it explores the use of the Myth of Battle, the Myth of Hero, the Myth of Victim, the Myth of Religion, the Myth of Land and the Myth of Other. It seeks to determine which of these myths each group emphasizes through a qualitative and quantitative visual ethnographic content analysis. \nThe quantitative analysis uncovered interesting, albeit not statistically significant, differences between Fatah’s and Hamas’ use of all of the myths in their videos. Specifically it found that both groups made equal and great use of the Myth of Religion; that Hamas produced the videos with the greatest focus on the Myth of Battle and the Myth of Hero; and that neither group greatly emphasized the Myth of Victim, the Myth of Land or the Myth of Other. Finally, the analysis discovered positive correlations between the Myth of Hero and the Myth of Battle as well as between the Myth of Battle and the Myth of Other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".