MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035801381 · doi:10.7202/001930ar

Existential Sentences in Arabic-English Translation

2002· article· fr· W2035801381 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicHumanitiesPhilosophyExistentialismLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'auteur propose une étude des phrases "existentielles" dans la traduction arabe-anglais à partir d'un corpus d'observation des deux langues (un livre écrit en arabe et traduit en anglais : Awlaadu Haarratma). Il releve les phrases existentielles dans chacune des versions et constate que ces dernières, en arabe, ont été traduites par des phrases anglaises du même type, mais que les phrases existentielles anglaises sont quelquefois des traductions de phrases arabes non existentielles. Il conclut que les phrases anglaises ont deux fonctions : affirmer l'existence d'une situation, et amener une situation donnée à l'existence, les phrases arabes n'ayant que la première de ces fonctions. De plus, l'anglais fait un usage plus important de phrases existentielles et les deux langues différent dans leur vision du monde, une situation étant souvent envisagée par l'anglais comme un état, alors que pour l'arabe, elle est un événement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it