MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991926119 · doi:10.7202/019240ar

Remapping Translation Studies: Towards a Translation Studies Ontology1

2008· article· en· W1991926119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sonia Vandepitte

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranslation (biology)Translation studiesComputer scienceDirectoryMultitudeNatural language processingLinguisticsPhilosophyBiologyEpistemologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building on a common view of translation as a human intentional activity, this article presents a translation studies thesaurus in which all concepts from the multitude of different translation studies areas listed in Baker (1998a), the “Bibliography of Translation Studies” (1998-), Williams and Chesterman (2002) and the “EST-Directory 2003” are brought together on a single map that revises Holmes’s map (1972). Additional practical advantages for the study of translation studies are pointed out.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0350.033
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0250.044
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.397
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.032 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207