Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTIONIntralingual translation, as we know it, or as the discipline of Translation Studies (TS) mainly employs, was coined by R. Jakobson in the context of linguistic aspects of translation as rewording, i.e. interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same (1959: 114) and distinguished itself from translation or translation proper which an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other and translation or transmutation, that an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems (ibidem). The topic has been little researched so far, despite the fact that it should have been, as Baker underlines in her preface to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies: translation is not such a minor issue as the existing literature on translation might suggest... I know of no that looks specifically at the phenomena of intralingual or intersemiotic translation. We do have classifications such as Jakobson's, which alert us to the possibility of such things as intersemiotic and intralingual translation, but we do not make any genuine use of such classifications in our research (Baker 1998: xvii). Recent studies on the subject go as far as identifying norms and translation universals in intralingual translation (cf. Anlaug Ersland's MA thesis, defended in 2014 at The University of Bergen, Norway), displaced nationalism in the case of the American intralingual translation of Harry Potter (cf. Alexander Eastwood's from The University of Toronto 2010 study), or describe it through translation analyses (cf. Karen Korning Zethsen's 2009 analysis of five different Danish versions of a section of the Bible in Meta).2. INTRALINGUAL TRANSLATION BELORE 1989Reflections on interlingual translation are many and date as back as the 16th century, when the first (religious) translations were carried out and the translators also reflected on their importance; thus, Coresi, in his preface to intrebare cre§tineasca/The Christian Inquiry (1559), the first translation into Romanian, argued that this task was necessary since people need to understand who Romanians are as Christians, as Saint Paul the apostle speaks... This is because five words in Romanian that can be understood by the people are better than ten thousand words in a foreign language that cannot (quoted by Lungu Badea, 2005: 145). However, intralingual translation was significantly less dealt with. To our account, it was probably first mentioned in the communist period by loan Kohn's study, Virtutile compensatorii ale limbii romane m traducere/ Compensatory Virtues of Romanian in Translation (1983) in the context of the (hermeneutical) importance of translation in all cultures since the beginning of times. The Romanian TS scholar brings into play Jakobson's study mentioned above and the distinction between the three types of translation, namely 'interlingual', 'intersemiotic' and 'intralingual' to support his allegations; the last of the three, i.e. intralingual translation, is considered to be translation in its current sense, hence the most recent one. At its beginnings, this form, that actually occurred late, incorporated the other two to a greater extent than nowadays. The aporia in the translation of The Septuagint is, for Saint Jerome, not so much a result of the incongruence between Greek and Latin, but particularly between the divine and human idiom which will make him utter Sciens et prudens in flamman mitto manum (Kohn, 1983: 23-24). If translation has the meaning of understanding in a given context, the message can thus be decoded and included in the sphere of what is known, be it intralingual or interlingual communication; this is because any act of understanding is, at the same time, deciphering and interpretation, and hermeneutical considers expression in a different language to be only more difficult on the scale of hermeneutical interpretation. …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it