Film Studies and Translation Studies: Two Disciplines at Stake in Audiovisual Translation
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
Audiovisual texts are usually built according to the conventions of film language, a complex language that overcomes linguistic communication and has its own rules and conventions. In film language it is possible to distinguish several signifying codes which complement and frame words and linguistic meaning. This paper will focus on the interplay of non-linguistic codes in film language and audiovisual translation. In the first place, I will argue that for the analysis of audiovisual texts from a translational perspective at least the theoretical contributions of Translation Studies and those of Film Studies are necessary. Then, I will review the different models of analysis of audiovisual texts offered from the perspective of Translation Studies. Finally, I will introduce a new paradigm based on Film Studies, and present the signifying codes that primarily affect translation operations in the transfer. I will also illustrate these codes with a number of non-linguistic signs and their representation in the text, and will finally discuss the influence of such signs on translation operations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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