Nonlinear Narratives: Paths of Indirect and Relay Translation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following Dollerup’s (2000) classification of indirect and relay translation (here “T2”), this study locates both practices as translation taboos disparaged or tolerated depending upon cultural variables, shows its codification in translation organizations, and traces part of its aura of substandard practice to the doctrine of untranslatability; compiles the main reasons the phenomena have occurred, including extralinguistic factors; outlines some subclasses in a typology of ‘second-hand’ or intermediate translations (factoring in abridgements, adaptations, modernizations, lost originals, pseudotranslations, self-translations, triangulations, and transcreations); proposes ‘translative’ and ‘terminal’ relay, and overt and covert possibilities within retranslation, interlinear translation, plagiarism by translation, and support translation; considers the special case of sacred texts; and weighs new and future directions for study. The key factors of oral intermediation (the role of informants and collaborative translation) and the ‘intuiting’ of source languages without a working knowledge of them are brought into the equation. The work attempts to contribute a descriptive study to an area of research that has attracted visceral rejections of anything but source-to-target direct translation without such studies making allowances for the socio-historical conditions of production surrounding intermediary translation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it