Comment peut-on être sourcier ? Critique du littéralisme en traduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La prise en compte de la traduction littéraire comme création pose d’emblée l’immémoriale question du littéralisme, qui oppose sourciers et ciblistes. Quand on traduit une oeuvre littéraire, le théorème de dichotomie met en évidence le choix à opérer entre la spécificité ethnoculturelle (et linguistique) du texte original et l’esthétique littéraire qui est la sienne, et au sein de laquelle le rythme est un aspect parmi d’autres. Or il apparaît que l’accent mis trop souvent sur le décalage interculturel est plus ou moins surdéterminé par des impensés idéologiques. Mais la créativité littéraire de la traduction est un enjeu esthétique, et non pas idéologique. Cela dit, l’idée même de créativité est tendanciellement aporétique – et ce, alors qu’elle est concrètement à l’oeuvre dans les traductions de haut niveau.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".