MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096212936 · doi:10.7202/004141ar

Advertising in Translation: English vs. Greek

2002· article· en· W2096212936 on OpenAlex
Maria Sidiropoulou

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionAdvertisingVariation (astronomy)Target cultureOrder (exchange)Process (computing)Computer sciencePsychologyLinguisticsBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of advertising can be perceived quite differently across cultures. Analysts, therefore, are advised to approach advertisements with some understanding of the expectations in a particular culture (Rotzoll 1985). Such advice is particularly important in translating advertisements since the various strategies and techniques employed for persuasion have to be adjusted in the target culture in order for the intended perlocutionary effect to be achieved. The 55 English-Greek advertisement pairs examined in this research indicate that the translator should be sensitive not only to conventions applying across genres in a particular culture, but also to conventions associated with genre-internal variation, as 'soft-sell' and 'hard-sell' approaches in advertising are shown to require different types of interferences, in the translation process, for appropriateness to be achieved.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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)0.0070.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.161 · 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