Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article offre un survol des problèmes de traduction vers le français des romans de George Eliot et de leur réception dans l’Hexagone. Prenant Middlemarch (1872) comme objet principal d’étude, en raison du grand décalage entre les appréciations française et anglaise de ce roman, cette étude vise à isoler les éléments résistant à la traduction dans les romans éliotiens. Grâce à l’étude de la première traduction française de Middlemarch par M.-J.M., publiée chez Calmann-Lévy en 1890, nous émettons l’hypothèse que c’est l’intellectualisme de ce roman, incarné principalement dans le cadre de digressions narratives, qui gêne le lectorat français. En effet, la traduction de M.-J.M. comporte de nombreuses omissions importantes touchant précisément les digressions. La confrontation traductologique de Middlemarch avec sa traduction française permet ici de réfléchir sur la place de la digression dans le roman des deux côtés de la Manche, ainsi que sur la figure du traduire en France à la fin du XIXe siècle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".