MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386035843 · doi:10.46623/tt/2023.17.1.ar1

(Re)mapping the Inter-Philosophical Trajectories of Feminist Translation Theory and Praxis

2023· article· en· W4386035843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jharana Rani Dhangadamajhi

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslation Today · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisPostcolonialism (international relations)FeminismSociologyTranslation studiesFeminist theoryEpistemologyCritical theoryFeminist philosophyGender studiesPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The much celebrated and visibly interventionist Feminist translation theories and praxis that challenged the canonical norms of western translation theories more radically and heralded in the era of resignification in the field of gender and/in translation, is not an isolated upsurging of English experimental translation practices of Quebec feminist writings. Rather, like every text is intertextual in the poststructuralist frame work, the present paper seeks to argue that every philosophy is inter-philosophical, and the philosophical core of feminist translation is located in the theoretical premises of three major turns in literary and cultural studies i.e., poststructuralism, postcolonialism and feminism. Thus in the present paper an attempt is made to map the philosophical trajectories of poststructuralism, postcolonialism and feminism(s) to unearth those radical theories, concepts and categories that ultimately paved the way for the emergence of Feminist translation theory(s) and practice(s). Keywords: Feminist Translation, Poststructuralism, Postcolonialism, Feminism.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.043
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslation Today→Same topicTranslation Studies and Practices→French-language works237,207→