Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis le milieu des années 1980, le Centre national du livre (entité du Ministère de la culture et de la communication) administre un programme de subvention encourageant la traduction en français d’œuvres étrangères à forte représentativité littéraire ou scientifique. Quasi-unique en son genre, cette initiative soutient chaque année environ 330 projets dont 60 % relèvent de la Commission littératures étrangères. Loin d’être systématique, l’aide est accordée au terme d’une expertise portant sur la qualité de l’original et celle de sa traduction. Empruntant un cadre socio-traductologique et à partir d’un travail de terrain au sein de cette Commission, le présent article analyse le processus de traitement des dossiers afin de dégager les dynamiques et tensions qui le sous-tendent. Ce faisant, il interroge ce à quoi renvoient, au sein de cette institution de traduction, les notions de « forte représentativité littéraire » et de « qualité » en traduction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".