Pagdidili-dili sa Pagtutumbas (Ilang mungkahing mga hakbangin sa Pagsasalin)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It can be told that translation entails thorough practice. From there we can make a basis out of accepting the meaning,culture and essence of language from another language. To respond to this meticulous process of translating and to follow the proper way of word equivalence, a process has been proposed. This was based on the scheme by Jhoanna Cruz (1994) with additional other procedures. These are the following; Textualization, Semantic/Linguistic Basis, Semiotic, Language Familiarization, Scrib(e)1 &2, Auralization1 &2/Evaluation and Final Translation. This procedure may guide a translator and how he can conceptualize principles in the art of word equivalence or translation.
 References
 LibroBassnett-McGuirre, Susan. (1980). Translation Studies. London: Sage Publications.
 Bautista, Cirilo. (1990) Breaking Signs: Lectures on Literature and Semiotics.Manila: Dela Salle University Press.
 Bayot, David Jonathan (1996) Isagani R. Cruz and The Other other Interventionin Philippine Kritika. Manila: De La Salle University Press.
 Hasim, Basil & Mason, Ian. (1997) The Translator as Communicator. New York:Routledge.
 Kristeva, J. (1986) Word, Dialogue and Novel in T. Moi (ed) The Kristeva Reader.Oxford: Blackwell.
 Medina, B.S Jr. (2000) Sa Ibang Salita. Manila: De La Salle University Press.
 Muschard, Jutta. (1996) Relevant Translations: History, Presentations, Criticism,Application. Berlin: Peter Lang.
 Newmark, Peter. (1981) Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
 ____________. (1995) A Textbook of Translation. New York: Phoenix, ELT.
 Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Towards A Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
 Retsker, Jakob. (1993). The Theory and Practice of Translation. In Translationas Social Action: Russian to Bulgarian Perspective. New York: Routledge.
 Cruz, Jhoanna. 1994. The Translator as Co-Creator: The Semiotic Method ofTranslation. LIKHA, Vol. 16, No.1, 1994-1995, pp.14-22.
 On-LineCornell, Saul. (1995) Splitting the Difference: Textualism, Contextualism andPost Modern History. The American Studies Journal. Vol.36, No. 1.pp.57-80. Retrieved from https://journals.ku.edu/amerstud/article/view/2807.
 Fairclough, Norman. (1992) Discourse and Text: Linguistic and IntertextualAnalysis within Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Society.Vol.3, No.2.pp.193-217. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norman_Fairclough/publication/248712799_Linguistic_and_Intertextuality_Analysis_Within_Discourse_Analysis/links/568e251608aeaa148b994/Linguistic-and-Intertextual-Analysis-Within-Discourse-Analysis.pdf.
 Lemaster, Tracy. (2012) What is Intertextuality? Humanities. Retrieved fromhumanities.wise.edu/asset/misc/What_Is_Intertextuality.pdf.
 Machida, Sayuki. (2011) Translation in Teaching a Foreign (Second) Language:A Methodological Perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research.Vol.2. No.4, pp. 740-746. Retrieved from www.academypubication.com/issues/past/jiltr/vol02/02.pdf.
 Miaomiao, Wang. (2014) A Study on Semantic and Communicative Translationof Magical Things in Harry Potter. Canadian Academy of Oriental andOccidental Culture, Studies in Literature and Language. Vol.8, No.2,pp.26-31. Retrieved www.cscanada.org.
 Sichel, Barb. (2009) Planning and Writing for Translation. Multilingual Writingfor Translation. October-November 2009, pp. 3-5. Retrieved fromhttps://multilingual.com/downloads/screenSupp107.pdf.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".