Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'objectif du present article est de differencier l'analogie et l'equivalence dans la traduction. Dans une premiere partie, nous tentons de decrire l'equivalence comme une relation symetrique, en empruntant cette propriete a la definition de la relation logique d'equivalence. Differents tests de retraduction inversee montrent que ce trait ne permet pas de distinguer clairement entre analogie et equivalence. Ce qui amene alors a se demander pourquoi la traduction se reclame de l'equivalence en ecartant l'analogie. Dans une seconde partie, nous avancons l'hypothese que l'equivalence dans la traduction resulte d'une condition pragmatique, que nous appelons « la clause d'unicite ». Le traducteur doit passer d'un texte-source fixe a un seul texte-cible, ne pouvant proposer qu'une seule solution. Ainsi s'etablit une correspondance de fait entre un texte original unique et son unique traduction.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".