MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“The Walter Scott of Tahiti”: Robert Louis Stevenson’s Ballad Translation

2012· article· en· W2165976018 on OpenAlexafffund
Letitia Henville

Bibliographic record

VenueLiterature Compass · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBalladLegendLiteratureTransliterationMeaning (existential)EPICHistoryArtLinguisticsPhilosophyPoetryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines the unrestrained license that Robert Louis Stevenson used while composing his ballad, “Song of Rahéro: A Legend of Tahiti,” which is a translation of a traditional Tahitian legend. Stevenson attempted to replicate Tahitian rhythms in his translation, thus bringing foreign forms and, in transliteration, foreign words, to a traditionally British genre. Moreover, his formal choices – blending the epic into his ballad – helped to make “Song of Rahéro” a unique work in Stevenson’s Pacific oeuvre, as it depicts characters radically unlike the Tahitians portrayed in texts associated with evolutionary anthropology. Stevenson’s “Song of Rahéro” features confusing transitions and awkward phrasing, but, as Walter Benjamin has argued, even “bad” translations may adapt “meaning” well. An understanding of the form and composition of this under‐studied work can shed new light on Stevenson’s conception of, and translation of, the South Pacific. Intriguingly, the paratexts to “Song of Rahéro” undermine the politics of the text that they frame. While “Song of Rahéro” represents strong Tahitian characters, the preface and annotations position Stevenson as one more capable of sophisticated analysis than his sources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiterature CompassSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207