Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article interrogates the interpretive difficulties arising from the encounter with the Other in translation, specifically in the case where the subjectivity of the target text reader is implicated in the discursive constitution of identity in the source text. In contemplating how Anglophone Chinese Singaporean readers could interpret identities in Chinese literary works that invoke a strong sense of Chinese consciousness, I adopt Berman’s binary ethical framework in analysing the negotiation of Self and Other in translation. I posit that a positive ethics will be achieved if Anglophone Chinese readers position themselves as Other in their own language. On the contrary, a negative ethics ensues if the same group of readers embrace their identity as English-speaking Chinese as Self in the process of reading the Sinophone Other in the texts. The two conflicting positions create an epistemological dilemma on the part of the target text reader, thus raising the question of how identities can or should be negotiated in translation in the Singapore context, given that the cultural disposition of Anglophone Chinese readers is brought to bear on their reception of the cultural Other in translation.
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 | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".