Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’exemple du passé peut sans nul doute aider à limiter les incertitudes qui compliquent l’acte de traduire. La Renaissance offre alors un terrain particulièrement propice à la comparaison. En effet, tandis que l’humanisme trouve son expression dans un afflux de traductions, tant de textes des Anciens que de textes contemporains, nombreuses sont les zones d’incertitude qui jalonnent le parcours des traducteurs de la Renaissance. Qu’elles soient d’ordre matériel, textuel, pragmatique ou linguistique, ces incertitudes se voient amplifiées par des considérations culturelles ou politiques, voire commerciales. L’incertitude gouverne enfin le genre même de la traduction, si proche de l’imitation, de la paraphrase ou de l’adaptation. Le présent article examine la posture des traducteurs dans la France du xvie siècle en analysant leurs discours sur la traduction tout comme leurs productions, et dégage les tactiques et stratégies déployées par ces traducteurs dans leur combat contre l’incertitude.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".