MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913305023 · doi:10.7202/1055146ar

Womanhandling Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: Feminist Translation Strategies in a Spanish Translation from 1917

2018· article· en· W2913305023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Iris Muñiz

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismCovertInterpretation (philosophy)Translation studiesGender studiesSociologyValue (mathematics)LinguisticsLiteratureArtComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes a 1917 indirect translation of Ibsen’s A Doll’s House (1879) by María Lejárraga (1874-1974) as an example of early feminist translation. Relying on the existing theoretical outcomes at the intersection of gender and translation studies, it proposes a way of analyzing diverse translation strategies as a means for womanhandling the literary text, and thus making the most of the prevailing feminist interpretation of its international reception while reinforcing the budding feminist debate in Silver Age Spain and facilitating a specific understanding of the play. The importance of this case study as an example of early feminist translation is based on several factors: (a) this theatre text had a symbolic value in first wave feminism; (b) this Spanish translation was widespread due to Ibsen’s international fame and the national fame of the (overt) mediator Gregorio Martinez Sierra; (c) the feminist activism of the (covert) translator that made her select the text to spread a “thesis” she deemed necessary in Spain at that time for the developing of feminism; and (d) the numerous interventions at different levels (textual, contextual and paratextual) traceable in the translation.

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 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 categoriesScholarly 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207