MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392219546 · doi:10.1017/9789048542963.006

Conclusion: ‘Shall I Apologize Translation?’

2023· other· en· W4392219546 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten Inglis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranslation (biology)Computer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shall I apologize translation? – Florio, ‘To the Curteous Reader’ For the writers considered in this study, the intersection of the medium of manuscript translation with the conventions of early modern gift culture offered a space in which to circulate ideas that participated in current religious and political controversies. As prior scholarship on translation of this period has made abundantly apparent, translations cannot not be considered inferior works simply by virtue of their status as translations, and they frequently operated as a vehicle for the articulation of complex sociopolitical ideals and affiliations by both men and women translators. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries the translations of Bassett, Lumley, Seager, and Inglis would not have been regarded as derivative productions or attempts at writing crippled by a societal demand for women's silence. Instead, these and other women's translations of the period could and did circulate as scribal publications that performed the work of creating and furthering religio-political and economic alliances. Furthermore, the religious nature of many of the works in translation of this period should not convince us they are therefore without political import. In fact, the religious import of these works was often what made them such potent literary and political productions. It is important to consider these translators and their works as a related group because their practices of dissemination share an awareness of and participation in early modern gift culture. Rather than achieving print in an anonymous or mediated way (as did many women's translations in this period), these women retained some degree of control over their textual productions as they circulated them to specifically targeted readers. While two of the translators I have considered, Bassett and Lumley, come from the privileged social background we might expect of early modern women translators, Inglis and Seager do not. Although the image of a translator labouring in her craft so as to avoid idleness is one of the contemporary tropes available to both women and men when adopting a stance of humility in their dedicatory paratexts, for none of these women was translation simply an exercise designed to keep her from indolence. Bassett writes with a sense of urgency and community as she shares the words of Eusebius with like-minded Catholics under pressure from a reformist state and dedicates her work to their highly symbolic figurehead, Mary Tudor.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.028

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207