The consecration of languages through translation awards in Sweden (1970–2015)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role of translation awards in strengthening the literary capital of source languages. Focusing on three Swedish translation awards between 1970 and 2015, and comparing the awarded source languages to 1) the most central and influential literary languages in world literature and 2) Swedish publishing statistics 1970–2015, the aim is to position translation awards as an area of research within Translation Studies, as well as to investigate translation awards as a means of consecrating source languages in the target culture. Furthermore, we ask how these translation awards transfer different forms of symbolic capital back to the awarding institutions. The results from the comparisons show both similarities and differences, indicating that in the Swedish literary field, there are slight variations to the general global hierarchy of languages. The awarding patterns from the three translation awards studied are also in line with the profiles of the different awarding institutions. As could be expected, English is the most awarded language, although its dominance is strikingly small when compared to publishing statistics. This indicates that the literary capital of English is not unlimited; semi-central or even peripheral languages can transfer other sorts of values to the awarding institutions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".