The Discourse of Philanthropy in Italy and The United States: A Case Study of Interparadigmatic Translation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses translation of texts about nonprofit organizations from English into Italian as a case study of intercultural communication. Firstly, we note the importance of adaptation as a valuable strategy for translation of nonprofit texts from English into Italian. Secondly, we describe the intercultural difference between the nonprofit sector in Italy and the United States in terms of paradigms, following Kuhn’s theory of interparadigmatic translation and Gramsci’s idea of translatability. Thirdly, we show the connection between these epistemological frameworks of translation and interlinguistic translation by selecting a number of keywords in the language of American philanthropy which do not have a direct equivalent in Italian, or whose equivalent may prove to be a "false friend" if translated literally (stewardship, philanthropy, charity): we show that despite the alleged "incommensurability" between Italian and American philanthropy, translation is still possible, and we suggest practical strategies that translators may adopt. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Joint ACLA/ AAAL Conference in Montréal (Canada) in June 2006.
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 | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".