Herméneutique et traduction : la question de « l’appropriation » ou le rapport du « propre » à « l’étranger »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur examine les questions de « l’appropriation » et du rapport du « propre » à « l’étranger », qui traversent toute la tradition de l’herméneutique philosophique, de Friedrich Schleiermacher à Hans-Georg Gadamer et Paul Ricoeur, en rapport avec la traduction. Si l’herméneute est un traducteur pour les grands représentants de la tradition, il importe donc d’examiner comment la traduction est le modèle de l’interprétation. Le texte, en tant qu’écriture appelant la lecture, et donc l’acte d’interprétation, constitue la dimension essentielle de l’herméneutique et le point de rencontre de la réflexion herméneutique et de la traductologie. En s’attachant à décrire le processus de la compréhension et en posant la question du sens, l’herméneutique philosophique peut contribuer, selon l’auteur, aux fondements épistémologiques d’une théorie de la traduction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".