MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992694078

Legal Translation in the Perspective of Functionalism

2015· article· en· W2992694078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hai Zhan

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkopos theoryCreativityFunctionalism (philosophy of mind)Target textSource textLinguisticsTranslation studiesInterpersonal communicationMacroPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceTranslation (biology)Action (physics)SociologyEpistemologyCognitive sciencePsychologyCommunicationArtificial intelligencePhilosophySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper holds that legal translation studies should be conducted in a macro-to-micro way, that is, a top-down way which is consistent with Functionalist Translation Theory. Legal translational action and the agents within it are generally analyzed, and then translation Skopos and textual function in macro-level are combined with language disposal in micro-level. Given tremendous freedom and creativity of Functionalist Translation Theory, the translator is no longer the one who transmits between the source-text and the target text. In the process of the translational action, the translator has taken on a very active role of effective communicator whose main task is to make a successful interpersonal 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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.050
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207