MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144542282 · doi:10.7202/037414ar

Does Hortense Have a Hoo-Hoo? Gender, Consensus, and the Translation of Gisèle Pineau’s L’espérance-macadam

2007· article· en· W2144542282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aletha Stahl

Bibliographic record

VenueTTR traduction terminologie rédaction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCaribbean and African Literature and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Creole languageSociologyLinguisticsHistoryPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does Hortense Have a Hoo-Hoo? Gender, Consensus, and the Translation of Gisèle Pineau's L'espérance-macadam — This article uses an experiment in translating Guadeloupean writer Gisèle Pineau's novel L'espérance-macadam via consensus as a point of departure for analyzing the broader context of translating the French Caribbean for an English-speaking public. Previous efforts at translating recent French Caribbean fiction have focused on the challenge of representing the linguistic spectrum specific to the franco- and creolophone Caribbean. Here, it is suggested that Pineau's particular choices in inflecting French with Creole represent women in important ways, and that an awareness of this gendering of language is germane to translation into English. It is also acknowledged that desires on the part of English-speaking translators are not necessarily innocent but that an awareness of gender and local specificities can contribute to the consensus process entailed in publishing translations and should be part of ongoing debates concerning the French Caribbean in general.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTTR traduction terminologie rédactionSame topicCaribbean and African Literature and CultureFrench-language works237,207