MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489644100 · doi:10.7202/1036953ar

Meeting the New Anne Shirley: Matsumoto Yūko’s Intimate Translation of Anne of Green Gables

2016· article· en· W2489644100 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akiko Uchiyama

Bibliographic record

VenueTTR traduction terminologie rédaction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityCriticismLiteratureReading (process)ArtHistoryArt historyPhilosophyPsychologyLinguisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Akage no An , the Japanese translation of L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables (1908), has enjoyed continued popularity in Japan since the translation was first published in 1952. This paper examines one of the many translations that have been published since then, Matsumoto Yūko’s Akage no An , published in 1993. Unlike previous translations, which generally targeted child readers, Matsumoto translated the book for adult readers. The notable difference in Matsumoto’s translation is her detailed endnotes explaining literary allusions and cultural references. This paper examines how Matsumoto translated Anne of Green Gables , with a particular focus on her relationship with the text. This relationship is viewed through the lens of feminist literary criticism, which, Matsumoto explains, relates to her approach to translation. Her translation is also discussed through the idea of girls’ intimate reading. While Matsumoto describes her approach as aligned with feminist literary studies, this paper argues that the success of her translation is also underpinned by her practice of “girls’ intimate reading.” Feminist literary studies and girls’ intimate reading are shown to be interconnected in Matsumoto’s work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTTR traduction terminologie rédactionSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207