Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s literary production in Spanglish, the so-called “hybrid” language that mixes English and Spanish, has been increasing. With increasing publication has come a demand for translations of these texts. While some authors readily choose to translate their work, others are closer in line with Gloria Anzaldúa who said “Until I can take pride in my language I cannot take pride in myself... Until I am free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having always to translate, while I still have to speak English or Spanish when I would rather speak Spanglish, and as long as I have to accommodate the English speakers rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate” (1999, 81). This hesitation to accommodate English speakers fails to consider that approximately 2/3 of them are non-native speakers. Consequently, the role that English can play in south-to-south translation is not negligible and “having” to translate because of the existing English hegemony in the US Latinx context is not the same as choosing to translate for any of a number of other motivating factors. Both are equally legitimate options, but this begs the question, is there a way to translate Spanglish so that English readers can access it without “accommodating” the English hegemony? This paper explores intralingual translation rather than normative interlingual translation as a tool to expand the readership of these texts while not fully assimilating them into the traditional English publication norms.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".