Nouvelles aventures de Gulliver à Blefuscu : traductions, retraductions et rééditions des Voyages de Gulliver sous la monarchie de Juillet1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les Voyages de Gulliver (Swift, 1726) connaissent un grand succès au xixe siècle en France. Les quelque cent éditions parues entre 1815 et 1898 présentent une quinzaine de révisions distinctes, de versions abrégées ou expurgées et de retraductions, quoique la traduction réalisée par Pierre-François Guyot, abbé Desfontaines, en 1727 reste prédominante. L’analyse de trois versions publiées entre 1832 et 1843 (une réédition du texte de Desfontaines, une retraduction et une version expurgée pour la jeunesse), révèle comment la notion de traduction a évolué en un siècle et demi. L’étude du discours paratextuel et d’exemples tirés des passages les plus problématiques – s’agissant du « bon goût » ou des convenances – montre que des positions divergentes en matière de traduction cohabitent tout au cours du xixe siècle, cependant que les éditeurs semblent s’entendre pour proposer au lectorat français des textes retravaillés, qui ont transformé notre lecture de Gulliver en le vidant de son essence et en l’infantilisant.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".