MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072888150 · doi:10.7202/037246ar

Translation as Writing Across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati

2007· article· en· W2072888150 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

VenueTTR traduction terminologie rédaction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSamuel Beckett and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityRelation (database)CreativityPrincipal (computer security)LinguisticsLiteratureTranslation (biology)PhilosophySociologyHistoryArtComputer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translation as Writing Across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati — This paper attempts to demonstrate that translation cannot be divorced from writing, that originality and creativity are not characteristic only of the latter, that translation is not mere reproduction. This is developed in relation to Samuel Beckett's translations of his own works and five translations of a passage of a late nineteenth-century Indian novel. In the case of Samuel Beckett, translation is seen as a way both to begin and to continue the writing process, a way for him to explore one of the principal themes of his work, the relation of writing to language(s). In that of the five translations into English of a passage from the Oriya novel by Fakir Mohan Senapati, Chha Mana Atha Guntha, the differences between them are examined for the purpose of showing the extent to which the practice of translation is always an act of creative writing.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.209 · 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