MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Skopos Theory and Tourist Material Translation: With an Analysis of Mt. Lushan Translation

2011· article· en· W1960380987 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Ma, Naikang Song

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkopos theoryHumanitiesTourismChinaPhilosophyArtPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)Law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With Chinese opening and reform policy, more and more foreigners come to China for sightseeing. With the rapid growth of Chinese tourism industry, a further study in translation of English for tourism is a must, since, now, there exist some problems in translation of English for tourism. This thesis, guided by the Skopostheorie of translation and with the author’s analysis of two English versions of Mt. Lushan, is a tentative endeavor to find some way to solve the existing problems in translation of English for tourism. Key words: The Skopos theory; Tourist material translation; Translation of Mt. LushanResume: Avec l'ouverture chinoise et la reforme de la politique , il y a plus en plus des etrangers qui viennent voyager en Chine. Avec la croissance rapide du secteur touristique de la Chine, une nouvelle etude dans la traduction d'anglais pour le tourisme devienne une necessite , car , maintenant, il existe des problemes de la traduction d'anglais pour le tourisme. Cette these, guidee par la traduction de Skopostheorie et avec l'analyse de l'auteur de deux versions anglaises de Mt. Lushan, essaient de trouver des facons afin de resoudre des problemes existants de la traduction d'anglais pour le tourisme.Mots-cles: La theorie Skopos; Traduction materielle (substantielle) touristique; Traduction de Mt. Lushan

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207