MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039910785 · doi:10.2989/16073614.2013.864442

Translation and modernisation: The case of Iran during the 19th century

2013· article· en· W2039910785 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Mohammad Alavi

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theoryModernityPoliticsSociologyLate 19th centuryFunction (biology)World-systemPolitical scienceSocial sciencePolitical economyPeriod (music)LawAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigates the social function of translation. It studies how translation contributed to the modernisation of Iran during the 19th century. In doing so, it relies on Niklas Luhmann's theory of society. The theory conceives of modernity as a stage of societal evolution in which the world society is differentiated into functional systems. It informs moreover that the degree of communicative participation in different functional systems puts different regions of the world in a hierarchical status. While European countries were actively participating in scientific, military, economic and political systems from the 16th century onward, Iran was communicatively cut off from its modern environment and it was only in the earlier years of the 19th century that it was integrated into European-centred globalising systems. At this stage translation served as a communication medium that allowed the Iranian system to understand communicatively its European environment, to interact with it and use the derived information in reforming its pre-modern structures. Translations demonstrate well which aspects of modernity have been of interest for Iran at different periods of the 19th century.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern African Linguistics and Applied Language StudiesSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207