MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208702983 · doi:10.33137/rr.v35i4.19702

« Moy Traductrice » : le façonnement de la figure auctoriale dans le paratexte des traductions de Marie de Gournay

2013· article· en· W2208702983 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean‐Philippe Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueRenaissance and Reformation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosContext (archaeology)HumanitiesArtHumanismOrder (exchange)AllianceLiteratureClassicsArt historyPhilosophyHistoryTheologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marie Le Jars de Gournay’s prolific textual production has attracted increasing scholarly attention in the last few years. One of the still relatively understudied parts of her oeuvre comprises the five translations from Latin that occupy 274 out of the 995 pages of her 1641 Advis. As Montaigne’s “fille d’alliance”, she seems to be mainly known for her French versions of the Latin quotations in the Essais; however, her own translations from Ovid’s Elegies or Virgil’s Aeneid have been largely overlooked, as well as the liminary writings—some of which prove quite substantial, as her De la façon d’escrire de Messieurs l’eminentissime Cardinal du Perron et Bertaut—where Gournay offers her remarks on the art of translation. In this essay, I wish to focus on these paratextual writings to examine the self-defining strategies employed by Marie de Gournay in order to legitimize her translation activities. Faced with the obstacles caused by “the little credit given to [her] sex”, as well as the specific challenges posed by her sources, Gournay interestingly presents her work as composed in “such an unscholarly season” (“une saison si peu studieuse”), that is at a time when the humanist ideals of the sixteenth century were no longer valued. This article seeks to attend to the ethos constructed through the dedications and other liminary pieces in the second book of the Advis, and to examine how Gournay’s discursive ethos serves to anticipate and guide the reception of her translations. In this context, paratexts should be viewed, not as mere accessories, but rather as an essential discursive framework for the interpretation of Gournay’s translations—it is actually quite clear from the arrangement of the volume that the liminary material was designed as a tight interpretive frame for the translated texts. This study will eventually allow us to determine the place of translation within the range of authorial practices embraced by Marie de Gournay.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenaissance and ReformationSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207