Bibliographic record
Abstract
Translation is an important aspect of the language of colonization. Here, I concentrate on two English translations of two significant sixteenth narratives in French about the exploration by France of Canada and Brazil. There are translational and comparative elements to this literature of expansion. English, British and English-speaking representations of the New World, including of Brazil, in colonial times and after, depend on the translation and interpretation of texts in Portuguese, Spanish, French and other languages, including Latin and Dutch, most centrally but not exclusively, through the collections that Richard Hakluyt the Younger and Samuel Purchas brought together and, later, by interested societies such as the Hakluyt Society, founded in 1846, to publish editions of primary texts of travels and voyages. The representation of this expansion, exploration and settlement in English is comparative and “translational.” Thus, English literature and literature in English include these accounts and are part of comparative literature. The intertextuality of accounts about the New World, including Brazil, means that English travel literature includes Portuguese, Spanish, French and other narratives. These encounter narratives are triangular because they are among Europeans as well as between Europeans and Natives – specific groups within these cultures. Although I will be examining context and examining some texts in colonial times, I will concentrate most on John Florio’s English translation of Jacques Cartier and the translation in Samuel Purchas of an extract from Jean de Léry’s history of a voyage to Brazil, which discusses European and Native cultures in Brazil.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".