Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines, in the context of Chinese discourse on translation, a phenomenon observable in translation studies in the Euro-American world in the last few decades, namely the reconceptualization of translation. Based on historical research, the article shows that in different periods in the history of translation in China, there have been repeated attempts to respond to the realities of translation of the time by offering new (as opposed to established) conceptualizations and explications of translation (fanyi 翻譯). What these conceptualizations are will be analyzed with reference to a number of texts taken from different periods of Chinese discourse on translation. The article will also explore the connections amongst these conceptualizations and show how a mental frame could be produced that could serve as the blueprint of a project of international collaborative research, one in which ethnocentric bias of all kinds will have no place. In the last section of the article, the author will continue the tradition of reconceptualizing translation by offering one more definition of fanyi 翻譯.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".