Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directionality is one of the most interesting recent developments in translation studies in the West. The scene, however, is rather different in China with a long history of inverse translation. This article aims to outline translation practices in China and Chinese thinking on directionality while providing a few pointers for further research. Part one surveys major translation projects that were carried out or are being carried out and how Chinese translation scholars thought/think about directionality. The survey covers nineteen centuries from the 2 nd century A.D. through the present time, albeit most of the data are devoted to the periods from the turn of the 20 th century. It is found that although inverse translation is an age-old practice in China, the issue of directionality began to be seriously considered and debated only in the early 1980s, and that there has been increased attention to the topic in recent years. Part two briefly reviews the current status of research and concludes that directionality is an under-researched area in Chinese translation studies. The article ends with some suggestions for further research on the subject in the Chinese context, drawing on the latest research conducted in the West.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".