MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2675964449 · doi:10.1075/ttmc.3.3.02cor

New possibilities for translation

2017· article· en· W2675964449 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationHarmony (color)SociologyEpistemologyKey (lock)PsychologySocial sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pioneered by feminist ethicist and psychologist Carol Gilligan in her 1982 work In a Different Voice , care theory rests, according to philosopher Rita Manning, on four key elements: Moral Attention, Sympathetic Understanding, Relationship Awareness, and Harmony. Combined with the notion of voice present in Gilligan’s title, each of these components represents a key portion of the translator-text-author relationship, particularly when translation is seen as negotiation. In this contribution, after examining the notion of translation as negotiation as Eco describes it, I will offer an overview of the psycho-sociological theory of care, with the aim of presenting it as a framework for ethical decision-making in negotiating the act of translation. The importance of translaboration will become evident through the theories of Ricoeur and an emphasis on the cooperative nature of ethically negotiated decisions; i.e., ‘trans’ and its insistence on moving across, beyond, through; and ‘laboration’ and its insistence on the continuing and ongoing process of working.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.249 · 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