Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expanding field of network studies, which comprises histories, traditions and innovative research from myriad disciplines such as mathematics, the social sciences, linguistics, computer science, physics, biology, Internet and communication studies may find meaningful dialogue with the field of translation studies. This introductory article seeks to present a multifaceted and multi-tiered historical trajectory of the term and concept “network”, reflecting on the impact it has already had on studies in the domain of the sociology of translation. Can a network-based vocabulary emerging from network theories and studies, including recent works on network society, offer translation studies new conceptual tools with which to think through and articulate translation phenomena? By the same token, how might translation studies, viewing interlingual transfer in terms of product, process, profession, industry, politics and strategy, contribute to the growing body of research on the transmission and exchange of thoughts, ideas, messages, information, values, which characterize communication, the core of all translation activity? As connectivity and connectedness take on ever-important social organizing dimensions in a globalizing multilingual world, a translation-informed network approach as well as a network-informed translation theory approach may symbiotically help us better understanding human and social practices.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".