A Systematic Literature Review of Tourism Translation and Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite many studies on translation and power, little has been done to examine the power relations in tourism translation. This systematic literature review aims to investigate publications on tourism translation and power in the translation field. With Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) as the framework, this study employed two primary journal databases in English and Chinese, namely Scopus and CNKI. Following an eight-step guide, a total of eight articles, including seven journals and one book chapter, were included in the final research. Based on systematic literature review and thematic analysis methods, four main themes were identified concerning the power issues in tourism translation. The first theme showed the subjective exertion of power by the translators in tourism translation to promote tourism in a destination. The second theme demonstrated the power exertion in translating tourism texts for economic reasons. The third and fourth themes referred to ideology-related and culture-related power exertion in the process of translating tourism texts. Apart from the emerging themes, the most notable study outcome indicated three research gaps in tourism translation and power, concerning language pairs, translation strategies, and research methodology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".