MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564157730 · doi:10.29173/af9535

Quelles langues de la francophonie pour la traduction de l’hétérolinguisme dans les nouvelles d’Olive Senior ?

2011· article· fr· W1564157730 on OpenAlex
Marie-Annick Montout

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Donner la parole à ceux qui n’ont pas la plume pour écrire, tel est le projet esthétique d’Olive Senior. Dans ses nouvelles, le langage est ce qui permet aux personnages de parler d’eux-mêmes, de se libérer, de se trouver, de créer leur propre identité en usant de toutes les variétés de langues à leur répertoire, parfois à l’intérieur d’une même phrase. Le texte écrit est le lieu d’expression de leur vive voix, celle par laquelle se dit leur personnalité et leur culture. C’est pourquoi la langue retenue pour la traduction doit former un nœud indissoluble entre le fond et la forme. Prenant appui sur des extraits de quatre nouvelles d’Olive Senior récemment parues en traduction, le présent article se propose de montrer que l’exportation des nouvelles d’Olive Senior ne peut pas s’envisager sans une exportation de la culture jamaïcaine par la langue.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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