Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term “transnational” developed over the 20th century to describe cosmopolitan, multicultural societies that stem from migration; the concept of transnational feminist translation studies adds references to postcolonial feminisms to this term, offering new collaborative avenues of research and publication. This article reports on the challenges such collaborations pose, and how they have impacted an early attempt to produce an anthology of scholarly texts in the area of transnational feminist translation studies (Flotow and Farahzad, 2017). It develops a number of specific areas of difficulty: the “hegemony” of English in academic publishing and how this affects the circulation of feminist texts from beyond the Anglo-American Eurozone; the issue of power relations between editors and authors, cultures, and languages; questions of inclusion and exclusion, especially as different religious/cultural backgrounds affect scholarly discussion; and the importance of women’s/feminist diversity as well as the risks/benefits of a universalizing discourse. While the article is concerned with “challenges”, it ends with a call for more such collaborative transnational work to re-energize and promote the field of feminist translation studies worldwide.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".