Bibliographic record
Abstract
La métaphorisation récente du concept de « traduction » tend à faire de ce dernier un équivalent, voire un substitut du concept de « transfert ». Une telle évolution, loin de rapprocher les études de traduction et la littérature comparée, suscite un éventail de problèmes aux plans théorique, méthodologique et analytique. L’article passera ces derniers en revue, avant de proposer une démarche intégrée, où le concept de transfert, défini comme un processus de circulation entre les systèmes littéraires, leurs sous-systèmes et leurs modèles de communication sera corrélé à la traduction. Suit une analyse d’un cas concret, encore inexploré par les historiens ou par les comparatistes : la migration massive au nord de la France de familles belges au XIX e siècle, une migration qui s’accompagne d’un vaste processus de transfert d’un ensemble d’attitudes, de croyances, de savoirs et de savoir-faire investis dans les pratiques sociales, professionnelles ou culturelles du migrant. Quant aux pratiques verbales et littéraires, on observera que ce processus agit moyennant des procédures comme la traduction, l’imitation, l’édition, l’anthologie et le compte rendu. Ces techniques s’appliquent surtout à des genres mineurs et oraux tels que la chanson.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".