In Gutenbergs Fußstapfen: Translatio typographica Zum Verhältnis von Typografie und Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since Johannes Gutenberg’s times, typography has shaped the visual appearance of the written word in western cultures. Gutenberg’s invention gave birth to a development that has changed the appearance of the written message considerably compared to scriptographically manufactured texts. Texts that have been carefully typographically designed still serve as examples both to emulate and also to aim for in desktop publishing. Therefore, the typographical tradition is of essence even in the era of the computer and has resulted in a dichotomy of typographic design (non-professional vs. professional typographic). Hence, all texts that are intended to be translated form part of a bi- or even multi-coded textual network and exist, in one way or another, as typographically designed texts. Equally, a translation project starts as an unfinished product and must undergo, as a rule, some typographical process prior to printing and publication. Therefore, typography is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration under the double aspect of professional translation and the education of translators. 1. Typography is a semiotic phenomenon, which means that all typographical symbols are specific to their individual cultures and, hence, have different meaning. Also, various cultures will use these symbols with varied frequency. What is more, authors of literary texts may employ typographical symbols intentionally as a special characteristic of the text or as part of it. 2. Typography needs to be considered in the light of the visual appearance of a text, a fact that serves to demonstrate the significance of, firstly, knowledge of a particular culture of typographical symbols; secondly, of typographical conventions of source and target culture (orthotypography); and thirdly, of a solid understanding into the professional production process of typographically produced publications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".