MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735538527

La comunicación es traducción, o, cómo evitar la brecha

2017· article· es· W2735538527 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

VenuePalabra Clave · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign (mathematics)Rhetorical questionAxiomPerformative utterancePhenomenonEpistemologyField (mathematics)Cognitive reframingSociologyArgument (complex analysis)LinguisticsPhilosophyMathematicsPsychologySocial psychologyPure mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this age of globalization, scholars in cultural studies and translation studies would seem to have a lot to talk about. It is strange, then, that they talk so little with each other. This article seeks to bridge that gap by asking what a theory of translation would look like if it were grounded in the field of cultural studies. It proposes three axioms: 1) to use a sign is to transform it; 2) to transform a sign is to translate it; and 3) communication is translation. Its argument is performative rather than simply expository: it is structured as an example of the phenomenon it describes. It explores the three axioms inductively, starting from strategically chosen examples to arrive at a notion of translation that prompts a final conjecture: translation is inextricably linked to rhetorical invention and, as such, it helps us reframe questions about our relationship with and responsibility toward cultural others. doi: 10.5294/pacla.2017.20.3.2

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.269 · 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