A Reappreciation of Cannibal Translation as Critique of Ideology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural hegemony has been widely discussed within the field of Translation Studies. However, few scholars proposed a method of political action to erase the thumbprint of hegemony found in many translated works. In my opinion, the concept of “cannibal translation” developed by Haroldo de Campos is an exception (De Campos & Wolff, 1986). This form of translation is a way to regain control over the meaning of existing discourses and of the systems of representations that govern our daily lives. This paper will rely on a strong theoretical background, in order to argue for the realization of a form of militancy within the boundaries of the systems of representations of language itself, in order to stop seeing the world with the “imperial eyes” (Mary Snell-Hornby, 2006) of cultural hegemony, namely of English tongue and culture in Canada and its industries in Colombia. Finally, I will approach militant translation as a method of “ideological criticism,” as understood by Slavoj Žižek. who defines ideology as a “unconscious fantasy that structures social reality” (Garcia & Sanchez, 2008).
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 | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.113 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".