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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the six authors discuss the question of whether Translation Studies should devote more attention to the linguistic aspect of translation, in view of the tendency in recent years to focus on its social functioning. In the first part, each author tackles one or more aspects of this issue; in the second part, the authors respond to each other's views. Topics covered include what kind of language production translation is, whether translational language arises out of a particular form of communication or is itself a linguistic system, the relationship of Translation Studies to linguistics and other disciplines, the behaviour of particular language pairs when they clash during translation, translational language from the producer's as opposed to the receiver's viewpoint, and the relation of the linguistic to the social and to the cognitive. Reference is made to methodologies such as keystroke logging and the use of corpora, and also to a range of past and present linguistic approaches to translation, from comparative stylistics to relevance theory. Suggestions are offered regarding the directions to be taken by linguistically oriented studies of translation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it