MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1127214110 · doi:10.71781/13553

Towards an ethic of cultural harmonization : translating history textbooks in the province of Québec

2010· dissertation· en· W1127214110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael P. Varga

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmonizationHarmony (color)NarrativeLegitimacySociologyContext (archaeology)EpistemologyPolitical scienceAestheticsLiteratureLawHistoryArtPoliticsPhilosophyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confronté à un projet de traduction de manuels d’histoire du français à l’anglais, destinés aux écoles publiques anglophones au Québec, Michael Varga définit une méthode qui ne s’appuie pas sur les théories de traduction classiques reliées aux structures binaires, mais qui s’inspire plutôt du modèle de la narratologie (narrative theory) prôné par Mona Baker. Varga reconnaît la légitimité d’une pluralité de narrations en compétition entre elles qui se manifestent parmi les différents groupes socioculturels faisant partie d’une même société (le Québec). Il identifie des passages en provenance du texte d’origine qui mettent en relief des conflits reliés à l’accommodation culturelle. Il traite la façon dont ces conflits échouent à communiquer adéquatement des réalités culturelles appropriées, lesquelles seront en concert avec les normes et valeurs propres à la société québécoise. Il propose des traductions, apte au domaine pédagogique, qui désamorceront ces conflits et les accommoderont tout en respectant la pluralité des réalités culturelles en évidence dans la société québécoise.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicTranslation Studies and Practices→French-language works237,207→