Lessons from Chinese History: Translation as a Collaborative and Multi-Stage Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how the development of translation practice under the influence of Buddhism, and also in the late Qing (1890-1911), serve to highlight two neglected areas of research in Translation Studies. First, there is the issue of the extent to which translation is a collaborative process. In both time periods, collaboration among 2 to 1000 people was the norm. Yet the models proposed in “classic” Translation Studies in the twentieth century theorized the translation process as being accomplished by a lone individual. The recent growth of translation companies has shown that collaboration is still common today, yet this remains a “black hole” in terms of research. Second, in both periods in China, relay translation through “pivot” languages played a vital role in the translation process. Again, this is a phenomenon that has been downplayed in Translation Studies; relay has been seen as a necessary evil, in a sense replicating the stigma attached to translation itself. These two phenomena thus deserve further study and have implications for translation pedagogy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".