Rizzi, Andrea, ed. Trust and Proof: Translators in Renaissance Print Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collection joins the ranks of several recent studies on early modern translation that examine the rapport between print and the translated text and between the translator and the various print-trade agents.The light it shines on the translators, their exploitation of the rhetoric of self-presentation and selfpromotion, and the collaborative nature of their work is particularly welcome.Within this context, it is particularly concerned with the matter of trust, sorely tested when a text crosses linguistic and cultural boundaries, and with the burden of proof, needed to validate the translation and provided by both its reception and the intervention of the translator.In keeping with the important changes that translation history and its methodologies have recently undergone, this collection "embraces agency" (the strategies that all those involved in producing translations employ to position themselves), "identity, and technologies of production" (2).It also demonstrates sensitivity to recent calls for an interdisciplinary approach that brings together translation studies and other related fields such as book history and literary, cultural, social, and art history.The work is divided into three parts, the first being "Translators' Rhetorics: Dedications and Imitatio." Brian Richardson, in "The Social Transmission of Translations in Renaissance Italy: Strategies of Dedication, " discusses how early modern Italian translations and their dedications were published socially: the printed work would be presented to a first reader, usually the dedicatee and occupant of a higher social position, but would subsequently become available to a wide readership.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".