Bibliographic record
Abstract
When apprenticed to the big powers, China thought it justified to translate without considering international copyright so as to enlighten the Chinese people and change the then backward China at the lowest cost. Such thoughts, deeply rooted in China’s academic tradition, have been in conflict with the Western notion of copyright for over a century. Although from the perspective of modern international copyright conventions, China was wrong in the past to infringe upon the source-text author’s translation rights, yet if power is taken into consideration in the process of translation, things are not that simple. Translation has been regarded as “a catalyst for social change” in China, however, with great power differentials between China and the big powers, this catalyst would not have been possible if China had been completely submissive to the Western notion of copyright. While wrestling with other powerful countries on the issue of translation-related copyright, China is striving to dialogue with them on a relatively equal footing. On the other hand, as the nature of translation is revealed more and more in Translation Studies, scholars are calling for the translator’s visibility, which raises an issue concerning the authorship of the translator and limiting the source-text author’s translation rights. In this case, traditional Chinese thoughts on the source-text author’s translation rights would contribute a subversive power in deconstructing the Western concepts of the original authorship. Key Words : The Source-Text Author’s Translation Rights; Conflict; Power Differentials. Resume: Lors de l’apprenti aux grandes puissances, la Chine a estime qu’il est justifie de traduire sans tenir compte du droit d’auteur international, afin d’eclairer le peuple chinois et de changer l’arriere, puis le cout de de la traduction le plus bas se trouve en Chine. De telles pensees, profondement enracinees dans la tradition academique de la Chine, ont ete en conflit avec la notion occidentale du droit d’auteur pour plus d’un siecle. Bien que du point de vue modernes conventions internationales sur le copyright, la Chine a eu tort dans le passe pour porter atteinte aux droits de traduction de l’auteur texte-source, et pourtant si l’alimentation est prise en consideration dans le processus de traduction, les choses ne sont pas aussi simple que cela. La traduction a ete considere comme «un catalyseur pour le changement social» en Chine, cependant, avec des ecarts de grande puissance entre la Chine et les grandes puissances, ce catalyseur n’aurait pas ete possible si la Chine avait ete completement soumis a la notion occidentale du droit d’auteur. Bien que luttant avec d’autres pays les plus puissants sur la question de la traduction liee a droit d’auteur, la Chine s’efforce de dialoguer avec eux sur un pied relativement egale. D’autre part, que la nature de la traduction se revele de plus en plus dans les etudes de traduction, les chercheurs appellent a la visibilite du traducteur, ce qui souleve une question relative a la paternite du traducteur et de limiter les droits de traduction de l’auteur-source texte. Dans ce cas, traditionnelles pensees chinoises sur les droits de traduction de l’auteur source texte contribuerait un pouvoir subversif dans la deconstruction des concepts occidentaux de l’oeuvre originale. Mots cles : Droits de traduction de l’auteur-source texte; Les conflits; Les differences de pouvoir.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".