Translational Justice in a Multilingual World: An Overview of Translational Regimes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since democratic societies are based on the ideal of participatory citizenship and since participatory citizenship presupposes, among other things, the citizens’ right to communicate with the authorities, one of the biggest challenges for contemporary multilingual societies is the elaboration of a fair translation policy: there is no language policy without a translation policy. However, among the numerous studies on language rights, on language policies or on immigrant incorporation, the key role of translation is usually not taken into consideration. Which linguistic and translational territoriality regimes are used by authorities to communicate with their multilingual populations? How do these different regimes relate to their linguistic and translational rights and their chances for participatory citizenship and integration? This essay discusses four prototypical regimes which may be used by authorities to communicate with their citizens. It will also try to hint at their possible impact on minorities’ linguistic and translational rights and integration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it