MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171486225 · doi:10.3968/12065

Literature Review on Ren Rongrong’s Chinese Translation of Charlotte’s Web

2021· article· en· W3171486225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Zhou, Changbao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaStatus quoInnocenceTranslation studiesMeaning (existential)LinguisticsLiteratureHistorySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyLawPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fairy tale Charlotte’s Web written by the American writer Elwyn Brooks White is featured with concise language, childlike innocence and profound meaning. It has been translated into various languages and introduced to many countries. In China, there are also different Chinese translations, among which the most influential and widely accepted translation goes to Ren Rongrong’s. Ren is one of the most experienced translators in children’s literature, making great contributions to the development of children’s literature translation in China. This paper first attempts to analyse the status quo in terms of the previous studies on Charlotte’s Web at home and abroad and then provide a review of domestic researches of Ren’s translation, focusing on the researches of Ren’s Chinese translation of Charlotte’s Web from the perspectives of skopostheorie, reception aesthetics, among others, and pointing out the deficiencies of the previous studies so as to make clear the current situation of the studies and provide some suggestions for the further studies of children’s literature translation in China.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207