Traduction négative et traduction littérale : les traducteurs de Poe en 1857
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le vaste corpus des traductions publiées en 1857 comprend des versions distinctes des mêmes contes d’Edgar Allan Poe, traduits par William Hughes et par Baudelaire. Ces versions s’opposent, le poète des Fleurs du mal choisissant une combinaison de littéralisme et d’accentuation du caractère morbide de l’oeuvre de son confrère américain, tandis que Hughes, pétri de culture française et spécialiste de la littérature pour la jeunesse, choisit la rationalisation du texte, l’étoffement et la paraphrase, pour transformer les Tales en lieux communs du conte. Baudelaire, en étroite communion avec l’oeuvre de Poe, procède, quant à lui, par identité d’esprit et cherche à produire une traduction-texte. À la traduction « positive » de Hughes, s’oppose ainsi chez le poète français une pratique de la « traduction négative » (entendue au sens photographique du terme) qui cherche à révéler la nature profonde du texte.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".