Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper represents one of the first attempts in Ukraine to provide a theoretical and methodological framework for understanding the role of translation in decolonial literary practices. It aims to develop the concept of «decolonial translation» and elaborate a comprehensive framework for the decolonial analytics of Ukrainian literature in translation, utilizing the conceptual mechanism of editorial studies of translation. The editorial analysis of English-language publications of Ivan Bahryany’s anti-colonial novel Tyhrolovy (in English renditions – The Hunter and the Hunted) serves as a case study to illustrate the relevance and potential of the proposed framework. Decolonial translation is positioned as a critical approach to translation that seeks to (1) overcome the epistemic violence inherent in colonial hierarchies that are embedded in literary production, (2) deconstruct colonial representations, (3) foster genuine intercultural dialogue, and (4) initiate interpretative practices that challenge mainstream collective knowledge. Consequently, the paper proposes conducting a decolonial analytics of a translated text by focusing on four key steps of editorial analysis: (1) archaeology of knowledge; (2) paratextual framing; (3) close critical reading of the translated text; and (4) re-presentation, which aims to present the material within a new system of discursive coordinates. Editorial analysis of translated texts allows for the tangible identification of layered “colonial knowledge” in the positioning of the text and its accompanying materials or, conversely, highlights their decolonial character. By comparing two English-language editions of Ivan Bahryany’s The Hunters and the Hunted translated by George Luckyj and published in Toronto and New York, this study demonstrates how the novel was positioned differently (in sociopolitical terms) within Canadian and American contexts.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".