Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.028 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".