Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper it is asserted that, despite recent movements in continental translation theory (see Wilss 1982 : 59, for an admirable summary of the situation), the essential orientation of translation theory, in the English-speaking world in particular, is still towards the evaluation of translation as product (i.e. as the translated text) and, by means of such evaluation, towards the discovery or creation of a set of normative maxims for the production of the ideal translation.What is proposed is a shift of focus away from the translation as an artifact - a product - towards translating as process i. e. an investigation of the psycholinguistic mechanisms of decoding and encoding in the context of bi- rather than monolingual information exchange. The paper concludes with some tentative hints at parts of the decoding elements of a model of translating which, it is hoped, will help to orient translators and teachers towards the means by which texts are transferred from language to language and from speech community to speech community ; a process which is universally recognized as a sine qua non for the improvement of international relations in a sadly divided world.
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 | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".