MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945454984 · doi:10.1163/26659077-02003003

Towards the Practice of Feminist Translation in Thailand

2017· article· en· W2945454984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gritiya Rattanakantadilok

Bibliographic record

VenueManusya Journal of Humanities · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityEquivalence (formal languages)Rendering (computer graphics)LinguisticsComputer scienceTranslation studiesIdeologyDynamic and formal equivalenceTranslation (biology)SociologyArtificial intelligenceMachine translationPolitical sciencePoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of feminist translation as a specific approach to rendering a text in translation from English into Thai has been under-researched. This paper aims to introduce feminist translation practices developed by Canadian theorists and translators, and suggests the extent to which this approach can be applied to the practice of ideologically-motivated translation in Thailand. Feminist translation is an approach to a translation method that attacks, deconstructs or bypasses inherently misogynist language. Fidelity and equivalence in translation are not a matter of utmost importance to feminist translators. Rather, they tend to make their presence felt in the texts through various methods of textual intervention. This notion of intervention in translation is central to feminist translation practices which allow the translators of feminist works to draw the target readers’ attention to linguistic transfer, translator visibility and feminist causes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.026
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManusya Journal of HumanitiesSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207