Shifts in Patronage Differentiation: Translation from European Languages in Isolationist Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article demonstrates that translation patronage can shift imperceptibly between being undifferentiated and differentiated. It focuses on the passage of time as a factor that could be added to Lefevere’s conceptualization of patronage. Currently this conceptualization approaches history as a series of snapshots, with little focus on transition, most importantly, between one form of patronage and another. With an overview of the development of translation patronage in early modern Japanese history, this article explores the dynamics of translation patronage over a period of well over two centuries, when the country maintained a policy of national isolationism. Under this policy, Christianity became absolutely taboo, and those associated with it were regarded with utmost suspicion. Yet, limited international trade was permitted to continue by a state-owned collegium of interpreters. Under this system, the patronage of translators in Japan was extremely undifferentiated, being obtained solely from governmental sources. However, before the end of this system, patronage had already shifted to a differentiated model, in which translation services were being sought by a wide range of parties beyond the government.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".