De la question de la lisibilité des traductions françaises de Don Quijote
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The readability of literary work, notably of classics, does not present itself in the same way for original texts and their translations. For a translated text, readability is both the feature to which we attach the greatest importance and the one that inscribes the text in the history of literature, within a given temporality, within an evanescence (that is, a translated version of an original text gradually becomes obsolete before it is replaced by another translation). In the case of translating classics, readability must be understood as the expression, for the reader, of a relation to this history of literature, but also as a form of otherness, which, of course, is the other language (the language of the original) or the reader’s own language…at another time in history. Among the texts that best problematize the question of readability in regard to classics, are the translations of Don Quixote, in particular the 20th-century French translations of Cervantes’ masterpiece.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".