Translation and the Changing Profession: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disciplines that deal with the selection, dissemination, and translating of information have had to adapt to changes that have come with the adoption of new technology. On the one level there has been a reflection in research on the responsibilities and relevance of the discipline itself and the professions associated with it. The “communication” professions have also shown a concomitant movement toward contracting rather than salaried positions, and so both the day-to-day organization of work and the institutionalized practices of entering the workforce, gaining experience, and being promoted have changed. Power relations inherent in organizational structures change as the organization of work changes, and the intrinsic values associated with professions that produce knowledge products change with reorganization as well. While technology has challenged all communication professions with change, the responses across these fields have been very different. This paper is about those differences in translation and disciplines close to translation. How has each discipline adapted (or not) to changes in the way its profession has evolved, and what does current research say about these transformations?
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".