Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past thirty years, crime fiction, children’s literature, comics and, to a lesser extent, romance novels have received growing attention from translation scholars. Drawing on an analysis of this translation studies literature and interviews conducted with translators working in different publishing sectors, this paper revisits the hypothesis of Clem Robyns (1990) , who proposed that non-canonical literary translations are the belles infidèles of the twentieth century. In a spirit reflecting the evolution of the discipline, the author examines not only the textual norms, but also the translators’ viewpoint and their role in the publishing process. The questions at the heart of this reflection are the following: to what extent does adaptation – to use a less value-laden term than belle infidèle – (still) constitute the translation norm of non-canonical literatures? How do the actors participating in the translation of these literatures and their involvement in the publishing process differ from those governing the translation of institutional literature? Finally, what can the study of these literatures teach us about translation and some of the key notions and oppositions in contemporary translation theories?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".