Developing a Blueprint for a Technology-mediated Approach to Translation Studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Austermühl (2001) put it over a decade ago, the use of information and communication technologies is a fait accompli in the lives of today’s translators. Translation Studies (TS) have traditionally contemplated technologies only as supporting tools for translation practice, and translators’ tools have not enjoyed consideration as decisive actors in TS. Hence, their impact has been somehow underrepresented in the discipline. In the light of well-established translation paradigms (linguistic, functional, cognitive, sociological), we analyze the role played by technology. Most TS approaches are artifactual, this meaning that a rather simplistic and outdated distinction is made between translator minds and the tools they use. This paper proposes an instrumental approach to technologies within TS. In this, cohesive and mutual merging between translators and their technologies, both field-specific and generic tools lead us towards a concept that goes beyond purely linguistic or anthropocentric translation notions. A trans-human translation theoretical modeling is proposed to revisit TS paradigms in the context of the Information Society era. The trans-human translation closes the loop initiated by the fragmentation and dehumanization of first translation technologies, and envisages a stimulating future for translators, where they will use technological and social extensions in a creative and critical way.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it