Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Translation Studies as well as in any other discipline dealing with human communication, we can assume without any doubts that adaptation is the most efficient communicational strategy. Although it is a tactical tool used to solve isolated communicational problems or conflicts, it is far and foremost a strategy with a long term general purpose closely related to a communicational and even a lifelong project. This paper will examine the implications of adaption as tactical and strategic ways of solving cultural dissimilarities from the translation studies perspective. Such reflection will be illustrated with examples taken from the so-called field of pragmatic translation activity but also from translation history. Particularly, we will look at what was at stake when Spanish missionaries translated religious texts while serving their purpose of evangelization. This will lead us to envisage the product of such adaptations as syncretism, métissage or hybridity. Those different concepts, while not contradictory, have distinct ideological and political implications when it comes to the interpretation of colonial history. This paper will also deal with the concepts of intertextuality and intermediality as ideal environments for adaptation. We will show that adaptation in translation studies is at the crossroads of various disciplines that it can enrich.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".