Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.010 |
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".