Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polysystems theory teaches us that the selection of texts to be translated is influenced by the conditions of the target culture. This idea can be corroborated throughout the different historical periods identified for the study of translation and translations in Hispanic South America. In the colony, translations of religious texts into the indigenous languages aimed at cultural assimilation. By the end of the colony, “American Spaniards” or criollos used translation as a matrix for both textual and aesthetical forms. This resulted in the creation of the first bodies of political texts and the appropriation of literary themes and values both from Europe and North America. After independence, translation was instrumental in the education of the new citizens, and in more recent times thanks to the ideas about translation conveyed by authors such as Octavio Paz and Jorge Luis Borges, translation in the region has been often associated to the irreverent concept of creative infidelity . This chapter leads to the conclusion that while recreation is the “translation norm” in Hispanic South America it is false to pretend that everything the region has created has been copied.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".