MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1520418273 · doi:10.7202/1018802ar

From Isomorphism to Cannibalism: The Evolution of Haroldo de Campos’s Translation Concepts

2013· article· en· W1520418273 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Odile Cisneros

Bibliographic record

VenueTTR traduction terminologie rédaction · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorPoetryTranslation studiesIsomorphism (crystallography)Relation (database)CannibalismMirroringLinguisticsMainstreamTranslation (biology)PhilosophyLiteratureEpistemologySociologyComputer scienceArtCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay charts the evolution of the translation concepts developed by the Brazilian poet Haroldo de Campos from his early concrete phase in the 1950s to what could be termed a postcolonial turn in the 1980s. I argue that the early concept of “transcreation” emerged from the practice of concrete poetry with its isomorphic mirroring of form and content. Stemming from the difficulty of translating concrete poetry and similar isomorphic texts, de Campos suggests a form of translation where a correspondence between the form and content of the original is also sought in the target text. Moving away from primarily formal concerns, in later developments, de Campos lays emphasis on a translation concept that puts forth a critical view of the original through the metaphor of the cannibal, who both reveres and devours the enemy, literally incorporating its energies into his body. This later concept of translation as cannibalism can be read within the larger arena of postcolonial translation. Although De Campos’s concepts were mainly developed independently from the mainstream currents of translation theory, they may be understood in relation to more recent discussions by Lefevere, Bassnett, and Trivedi, among others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTTR traduction terminologie rédactionSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207