“It's not quite what I had in mind”: Adaptation, faithfulness, and interpretation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes that Gutt's work on translation (2000), situated in a relevance-theoretic framework, provides a productive basis on which to discuss adaptations, especially of graphic novels. Expectations held by audience members that they will see their reading of a work presented on the screen are seriously flawed. In Gutt's terms, audiences who anticipate direct translations of their reading on the screen are disappointed by adaptations that present indirect translations; the disparity between expectation and result is the cause of disaffection. This paper argues that there is a crucial distinction between the interpretation of the text as constructed by the reader, and the filmmaker's interpretation as performed by the adaptation. This paper surveys a range of responses to film adaptations, explores the meaning of “faithfulness” in adaptation within the relevance-theoretic notion of resemblance, and concludes by showing that it is the director's, not the writer's or reader's, non-spontaneous interpretation which is performed by an adaptation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it