Translation practices in a developmental context: An exploration of public health communication in Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Translation studies in Africa has often been studied through the lens of postcolonial and literary studies (Tyulenev & Van Rooyen 2013). In more recent times, there has been a call for scholars to look beyond the postcolony and to enlarge the boundaries within which translation is studied (e.g. Marais 2017, Marais & Feinauer 2017, Susam-Saraeva 2002, Tymoczko 2007, Tyulenev & Van Rooyen 2013). Some scholars have argued that the concept of translation has for too long been studied from a narrow, Eurocentric viewpoint, based on literate societies. Inspired by this criticism, this study explores how translation is practiced in a very specific context, namely that of a developing country. It highlights the importance of socio-economic and cultural context in translation and how the different issues such as illiteracy, poverty, disease burden, geographical spread, and religious and cultural beliefs interact with each other in the area of public-health communication.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".