Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editing of anime – Japanese cartoons – is a process through which the product is altered in order to make it appropriate for the public. Such a practice is quite common all over the Western world, and Italy is no exception. Japanese anime are not designed only for an audience of children, and there exist different types of products aimed at viewers of different ages; consequently, in Japan anime are shown at various time slots according to their characteristics. In Italy, on the contrary, cartoons are generally considered a product targeted exclusively at children, and even those anime which were originally designed for an older audience are broadcast during the protected time slot and therefore have to comply to certain standards regarding their content and the type of language spoken. Censorship thus tends to take place both on the visual and the verbal levels: scenes considered inappropriate are removed from the story, the plot is often changed, the text is frequently domesticated in its references to the Japanese culture, and the language is flattened. Italian translators take an active part in the editing of anime : as they are the first ones to actually see the episodes, they are supposed to report to their commissioners any ambiguous element they come across, and they perform (self)censorship on the verbal level, manipulating the dialogue exchanges as is expected by the translation company.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".