MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139208287 · doi:10.7202/044788ar

La traduction de The Scarlet Letter (Nathaniel Hawthorne) par Marie Canavaggia : étude selon les perspectives de Pierre Bourdieu et d’Antoine Berman1

2010· article· fr· W2139208287 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Julie Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueTTR traduction terminologie rédaction · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marie Canavaggia est l’une des traductrices en vue des oeuvres majeures des littératures américaine et anglaise au XXe siècle. Le rôle qu’elle a joué et l’influence qu’elle a eue en France et dans les pays francophones ont permis aux lecteurs français de découvrir les grands textes des littératures de langue anglaise. Notre réflexion sur cette importante traductrice s’inscrit dans le cadre de la théorie sociologique de Pierre Bourdieu adaptée à la traductologie et, accessoirement, dans celui de certaines idées d’Antoine Berman en traduction littéraire. Nous avons tenté de saisir l’habitus – notion que nous avons préalablement définie – de Marie Canavaggia en examinant sa biographie (les données biographiques factuelles en particulier) ainsi qu’en présentant une analyse contrastive de l’une de ses traductions reconnues, La Lettre écarlate de Nathaniel Hawthorne. Nous concluons en dégageant les éléments qui permettent de mieux cerner l’influence de Marie Canavaggia sur la littérature française et sur la traduction dans le domaine littéraire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTTR traduction terminologie rédactionSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207