A Tentative Study of William Allingham’s A Dream Under the Guidance of Xu Yuanzhong’s “Three-Beauty Theory”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Famous Chinese translator Xu Yuanzhong advocates “three-beauty theory” in translating poems, namely, beauty in sense, sound and form. Based on the Luxun’s opinion, theoretical system of “three beauties” is summarized by Xu Yuanzhong after he translates a large number of poem. In addition to conveying the content of the original poem, it is also necessary for translators to strive to convey the form and rhyme of the original poem. Especially in poetry translation, the effect of “three beauties” is the goal of many poetry lovers. Guided by the theory of “three beauties”, the author tries to make an exploratory translation of William Allingham’s A Dream, keeping in line with the original poetry from three aspects of artistic conception, rhyme and form. And this thesis mainly aims for helping readers further appreciate the original poetry and draw lessons from translating the English poetry under the guidance of the theory of “three beauties”. Furthermore, the author wants to contribute to the cultural exchange between China and the West.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".