Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of culture is closely linked to translation, but it has evolved a great deal since translation studies emerged as an autonomous discipline. Initially culture was understood as a monolithic whole, coextensive with the use of a language that was thought to reflect a particular life style and vision of the world. Nevertheless equality between languages in relation to naming reduced the differences between cultures that might have been expected to hinder transfer of the meanings to be expressed. With postcolonialism, this linguistic approach to culture was replaced by an approach incorporating human factors. It became apparent that translation is a fiduciary operation between partners in an often asymmetrical relationship. The critique of translation practices drawing on anthropology revealed the relations of domination between translating and translated cultures. This cultural turn of translation called for an ethics of difference that respects identities. Increasingly translation practices that had been observed in the context of colonialisation, in distant times and cultures, were examined in the proximity of contemporary societies. Translation studies then began borrowing its models from sociology. It focused on agents and institutions and on the interests underlying the flow of translation, both within particular societies and on a global scale. On the edges of this sociography, the sociology of communication makes it possible to reintegrate the discursive components of translation. A number of factors, including new technologies, globalisation, conflicts and migrations, have led the forms and media of intercultural mediation to diversify, requiring new theorisations. Formerly the dominant paradigm, western translation studies is now incorporating insights from other cultures, which entails a revision of its concepts and models.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".