MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254895411 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511777486.006

Translation

2010· book-chapter· en· W4254895411 on OpenAlexaff
Steven G. Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryPound (networking)LiteratureSonnetArtTranslation studiesHistoryClassicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No less than he did for poetry, Ezra Pound successfully redefined both the conceptual and procedural terms for translation as a mode of literary production during the modernist period and after. Over practically his entire long career, Pound engaged in a sustained and enormously varied effort as both a practitioner and theorist of translation. Stretching at least from the early Sonnets and Ballate of Guido Cavlacanti (1912) all the way to the late collection of Love Poems of Ancient Egypt (1962), Pound published renderings of numerous different works from a wide range of languages, including Greek, Latin, Provençal, and classical Chinese, in addition to medieval Italian and Egyptian. Over and above the sheer volume of these efforts at rendering particular texts, he repeatedly, if never systematically, engaged in critical reflection about the practice, discussing both the larger cultural significance of translation and its proper methods. Taken together, his achievements in the arena of translation comprise a substantial and fundamentally important part of his overall accomplishment as a writer. Pound's commitment to translation as a distinctive (and distinctively important) mode of literary production arose from a steadily deepening conviction about its generative role in the broader formation of a vital literary culture. As early as 1916, Pound hypothesized that “A great age of literature is perhaps always a great age of translations; or follows it” ( LE , 232). Thirteen years later, any lingering doubts he might have harbored about the generative importance of translation in the rise of English literature had completely disappeared. Thus in “How to Read” (1929), his first attempt at a primer for modernism, he summarily declares that, after the period of purely indigenous Anglo-Saxon works such as “The Seafarer” and Beowulf , “English literature lives on translation, it is fed by translation; every new exuberance, every new heave is stimulated by translation, every allegedly great age is an age of translations” ( LE , 34–5).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2440.189

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.151 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207