Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several translation paradoxes underlie the writing and translation of the classic Canadian novel, Two Solitudes, whose very title has come to symbolize the irreconcilable gap between Anglophones and Francophones in Canada. These paradoxes reflect the intercultural nature of the book’s themes, the contrary crossreadings of both the original and its translation (the book was well received by both groups for opposite reasons), the colonial position of both nascent English and Québécois literary institutions, and the absence, in both cultures, of any clearly defined horizon of expectations for literary translation. Using Antoine Berman’s distinction between the actual translation (or traduction) of a text and the reception process (or translation) in the receiving culture, one appreciates the need for a more extensive analysis of the reception (translation) process, an analysis that looks both backwards in time to identify the hidden translation intertexts within the original text (Two Solitudes is in fact a translation of a Québec novel, Trente Arpents), and forward in time to clarify how a translated text can inform the more general intercultural process of translation between two languages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".