Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis proposes that Vancouver-based artist Germaine Koh’s (b. 1967) practice demonstrates the political and ethical dilemmas of translation within a globalized world. Here, translation is understood as a practice that aims to question means of navigating and interpreting through globalization’s afforded networks; it tries to make sense of global macro problem areas at micro levels. As I argue, Koh’s work tries to make sense of the social matter emerging from increasingly estranging geo-political, geo-economic, and geo-cultural realities. I have divided my text into four parts to I explore the ways in which Koh’s work performs acts of translation. In part one of this thesis, Translation: Prayers, I define and consider translation as the practice of interpreting and/or converting under two basic orders: 1) those that pertain to meaning and form; and 2) those that pertain to movement and positioning. In part two, Globalization: Alienation, I delineate the global world I am referring to and demonstrate how translation functions in terms of mobility. In part three, Social: Connections, I engage with Koh’s work to consider how globalization uses translation as a tool to foster both social alienation and social interdependency. And in part four, The Double Bind, I elaborate upon the central contradiction at hand, where translation surfaces as both the problem and the solution. Indeed, Germaine Koh’s work exposes the contradictions of translation and of globalization. In that translation is able to afford globalization its reach and ability to communicate across languages and currency, this text questions whether translation can accordingly perform critical efforts against globalization.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".