Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un certain consensus parmi les chercheurs fait remonter les débuts de la traductologie « scientifique » à la deuxième moitié du siècle dernier. Depuis cette époque, toutefois, la réflexion critique sur la traduction n’a pas touché tous les domaines de la même façon : beaucoup d’encre a été versée sur la traduction littéraire ou poétique, alors que la traduction pour la scène est restée dans l’ombre pendant plusieurs années. Mais la situation est en train de changer, car le nombre d’interventions concernant la traduction théâtrale se multiplient. La plupart des chercheurs, cependant, persistent à déplorer une absence d’intérêt pour la matière. Pour sortir de cette relative impasse, il est peut-être nécessaire de faire le point sur la situation actuelle en présentant les théories existantes, les théories qui s’en écartent afin de suggérer quelques orientations possibles pour la recherche future.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".