Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’humour est un phénomène universel, présent dans toutes les cultures, les langues et les civilisations, et très difficile à traduire. Lorsque la traduction d’un élément humoristique doit, de plus, se faire dans un texte audiovisuel, la difficulté augmente considérablement, en raison des caractéristiques et des restrictions inhérentes à ce type de support qui est subordonné aux limitations temporelles et spatiales des scènes et des dialogues. Dans le présent article, nous analysons l’humour dans trois films français illustrant les catégories de la comédie ou du drame, ainsi que dans leur adaptation en espagnol. Nous analysons différentes situations dans lesquelles apparaissent des éléments humoristiques, ainsi que les moyens utilisés pour les transmettre. Nous nous demandons si la version doublée reproduit cet humour de façon intégrale. Bien que notre analyse se limite à deux langues, la méthode utilisée devrait pouvoir s’appliquer à de nombreuses autres.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".