Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Demain tout recommence » : Lord Durham's Report en traduction — Cet article propose une analyse comparative des présupposés idéologiques qui traversent et façonnent chacune des trois traductions (1839, 1948 et 1969) de Lord Durham 's Report. On y étudie la représentation traductionnelle de certaines maximes idéologiques qui ont assuré la diffusion du discours nationaliste canadien-français et québécois au cours des cent cinquante années d'histoire de la traduction du célèbre rapport. Ainsi, il y est largement question de la perméabilité du discours traductionnel et des « principes régulateurs » qui le structurent. Après la présentation succincte du contexte sociopolitique propre au texte de départ et à chacune des traductions, l'étude comparative proprement dite tente d'illustrer comment les idéologèmes se manifestent à la surface du texte par le biais de variations synchroniques. Cette analyse du travail actif des idéologèmes se termine par l'examen de l'antagonisme entre le Canadien français et l'Autre, relation qui repose sur le « conquêtisme ».
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".