Translatorski dwugłos – współczesne uwarunkowania kolektywnego przekładu literackiego na przykładzie Kanady
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE TRANSLATOR’S DUAL VOICE: CONTEMPORARY CONDITIONS OF COLLECTIVE LITERARY TRANSLATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF CANADA Numerous historical examples and academic studies demonstrate that, prior to the Renaissance, collective translation was a commonly practiced form of translation. In contemporary times, however, literary translation is stereotypically perceived as a solitary activity, with the translator’s approach mirroring the original author’s creative process. The purpose of this article is to discuss the phenomenon of collective translation in light of the growing interest in Indigenous literatures in Francophone Canada, observable since 2015. Following an exploration of the historical causes of the paradigm shift and an examination of the contemporary conditions of the Canadian literary polysystem, the article analyzes the phenomenon of co-translations of Indigenous literatures from English into French, produced between 2014 and 2024.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it