Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nancy Huston (Calgary, 1953) is one of the francophone authors who contributed – with an essay entitled Traduttore non è traditore – to the theo- retical volume Pour une littérature-monde (Michel Le Bris and Jean Rouaud, 2007), which inscribes as an important step in the ongoing theoretical definition of world literature. With reference to a selection of Huston’s non-fiction publications, I am going to outline her poetics of self-translation and how the latter intimately relates to what she regards as the very task of Literature. Finally, I am going to briefly sketch the content of three of her novels: L’empreinte de l’ange/The Mark of the Angel (1998- 9), Lignes de faille/Fault Lines (2006-7) and Danse Noire/Black Dance (2013-14), which epitomize Huston’s transnational/translational poetics. The peculiar nature of the experience as a bilingual writer and self-translator opens to new possible prospects on the theorization of world literature, by question- ing the boundaries of linguistic and cultural identity and by defining an ethical aspiration for both literature and translation. Nancy Huston (Calgary, 1953) ha contribuito con il saggio Traduttore non è traditore alla raccolta Pour une littérature-monde (Michel Le Bris e Jean Rouaud, 2007), volume che costituisce una tappa significativa nella teorizzazione contemporanea sulla letteratura-mondo. Attraverso l’analisi di questa e di altre pubblicazioni, il presente articolo si propone di indagare la poetica di auto-traduzione della Huston, per mostrare come essa sia intimamente connessa a quella che l’autrice ritiene essere la funzione fonda- mentale della Letteratura. Vengono inoltre presi in considerazione tre dei suoi romanzi – L’empreinte de l’ange/The Mark of the Angel (1998-9), Lignes de faille/Fault Lines (2006-7) e Danse Noire/Black Dance (2013-14) – che incarnano, a livello di conte- nuti, tale poetica traduttiva e transnazionale. Riflettendo sulla particolarità della sua esperienza di scrittrice bilingue e autotraduttrice, Huston mette in discussione i confini dell’identità linguistica e culturale, fornendo così nuove prospettive al dibattito teo- retico sulla letteratura-mondo, e invocandone una missione etica.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".