Le «SARS» et les maux identitaires chinois. Néologismes, métissage et tradition de la traduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une Chine contemporaine engagée dans un très important renouveau du discours culturaliste, la langue et l'écriture, en tant que symboles essentialistes de l’identité chinoise, sont aussi l'objet d’enjeux politiques nationalistes. A partir de la querelle autour de la juste appellation à donner au virus du SARS, nous questionnons, dans une perspective historique, la dimension politique et idéologique des néologismes. Il s’agit surtout d’insister sur l’histoire transculturelle des concepts du monde intellectuel et culturel en Chine moderne, et de dépasser l’illusoire opposition discursive entre la posture universaliste et son double culturaliste. Since the mid-1980s, China’s intellectual and political world has been prey to a strong cultural nationalism which has tended to contest or to deny modern history and culture. This paper is a case study which brings to the fore the linguistic quarrel concerning the SARS epidemic which spread over China and part of the world during the Winter of 2002-2003. By discussing this discourse which balances between national identity affirmation and integration in a globalized world, we will try to overcome the triviality of this linguistic quarrel by replacing it in a broader political and historical perspective. This paper aims at insisting on the transcultural history of the modern Chinese cultural and intellectual lexicon helping to overcome the dominant and false discursive opposition between a universalist position and its culturalist counterpart.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".