MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104921069 · doi:10.7202/007988ar

TL versus SL Implied Reader: Assessing Receptivity when Translating Children’s Literature

2004· article· en· W2104921069 on OpenAlex
Cristina Sousa

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

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)ReceptivityPortugueseLinguisticsTarget textTranslation studiesComputer scienceLiteraturePsychologyEpistemologyArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reader of a translated text is particularly important when the translation is intended for a young audience. The translation must take into account the cultural knowledge of the intended reader. This article applies to translation studies some of the concepts advanced by critics Wolfgang Iser and Wayne Booth within the theory of literary reception. It looks at the rapport between the translator and the author, the implicit translator and the implicit author, the implicit target reader and the implicit source reader. Based on examples taken from an adaptation of Dorrit by Charles Dickens and the Portuguese translation of the Wolves of Willoughby Chase Chronicles by Joan Aiken, the article seeks to examine the role of the translator in assessing receptivity of the text.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.207 · 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