Mary Ann Shadd e a tradução como reescrita no espaço-tempo: analisando o processo tradutório de A Plea for Emigration (1852)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relying on the concept of Rewriting proposed by Lefevere (1993) and Arrojo’s (1986) studies on translation as palimpsest, this article aims to analyze and reflect on the translation process of the work entitled “A Plea for Emigration”, of the writer and first female black publisher in the United States, Mary Ann Shadd, published originally in 1852 and translated by the authors as “Um Apelo à Emigração”. The exercise of translating a text in English from the 19th century into Brazilian Portuguese in the 21st century was also permeated by Souza’s (2009) concept of reexistence, which gives us support in justifying and characterizing our translation project and the debates surrounding the archaic tone of the work. As a method, we extensively researched in the sociological, historical-geographical and political fields regarding the United States and Canada as well as etymological, semantic, grammatical and hermeneutical research; and finally, more practical examples involving environmental, climatic, and economic conditions in Canada. And as a background, feminist translation theories were put into perspective, such as Castro (2017) and the concept of epistemicide by Carneiro (2005), highlighting the reasons behind the choice and importance of Shadd and her work. The data was obtained by reading the source text, and additional materials such as newspapers of that time, Statutes, and Laws. The results present an ethical translation project that analyzes and adheres to the purpose of a pamphlet of that time. To avoid anachronisms, we kept terms from the past and included footnotes where needed to create an accessible translation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".