MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562075756 · doi:10.3968/8922

An Analysis on the Chinese-English Translation Mechanism of Chinese Enterprises Profiles From Functionalist Perspective

2016· article· en· W2562075756 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheng Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic and formal equivalenceLinguisticsSource textComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Perspective (graphical)Equivalence (formal languages)Promotion (chess)Translation (biology)PublicitySkopos theoryTranslation studiesTarget textMachine translationNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research, guided by the functionalist translation theory, puts forward that the process of translation should not be limited to a single language level. In the process of translation, the translator must comply with the requirement of the target readers, combine the purpose of translation with the target reader’s special circumstances and adopt appropriate translation methods. In chapter two of this research, through the analysis of C-E translation of Chinese company profiles, the researcher points out three common translation errors in pragmatic level, cultural level and language level. In addition, the researcher preliminarily analyzes reasons for company profiles translation errors in chapter three, the ignorance of the company’s publicity promotion purposes and the expected readers of target text and blind pursuit of formal equivalence between source text and target text. Finally, based on some examples of company profiles text, the researcher has concluded a translation mechanism of three principles that the translator should adopt in C-E translation of Chinese company profiles, Skopos rule, target reader oriented principle and adequacy principle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207