MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412089446 · doi:10.1075/dt.24003.che

An eco-translatology-based comparison of localization in simplified and traditional Chinese locales

2025· article· en· W4412089446 on OpenAlexaff
Yi-Chiao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Translation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychologyEpistemologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Through an examination of the three dimensions of eco-translatology, this study aims to identify the localization characteristics and differences in Hearthstone between the simplified and traditional Chinese locales, with the intention that the results can serve as guidelines for future localization projects for the two markets. In the linguistic dimension, faithful translation is the most frequently adopted strategy, although traditional Chinese teams sometimes rewrite text to enhance the entertainment level. In the cultural dimension, straightforward and simple wording in the source text again results in the most frequent use of faithful translation, and the traditional Chinese team still employs rewriting to create humor. Finally, to fulfill the expected effect in the communicative dimension, five transcreation strategies are identified in both localized versions, namely, re-creation of wordplay, contextualization by rewriting, referring to the Warcraft universe elements or regional expressions, imitation of the Chinese literary form, and use of political satire. The current findings can inform future localization teams, as well as future researchers who aim to investigate the strategies used in the two Chinese locales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital TranslationSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207