Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores feminist translation as both a theoretical paradigm and a cultural practice that has transformed translation studies since the late twentieth century.Drawing on the Canadian feminist thought, where translation was reconceptualized as an activist intervention against patriarchal language structures, the article traces the intellectual trajectories that shaped feminist translation theory.It examines central principles such as translator visibility, ideological intervention, and strategies including supplementing, footnoting, and hijacking, as codified by Luise von Flotow.The discussion highlights the influential contributions of scholars such as Sherry Simon, Susanne de Lotbinière-Harwood, Barbara Godard, and Patricia Hill Collins, who situate feminist translation within the broader struggles for epistemological, cultural, and political agency.The article also addresses contemporary debates on decoloniality and transnational feminist dialogue, citing perspectives from С.В.Bozzano, О. Castro and Е. Ergun, and A. Sifaki, who emphasize both the potential and challenges of feminist translation in global contexts.Special attention is paid to the Ukrainian scholarly tradition, where figures such as Solomiia Pavlychko, Tamara Hundorova, and N. M. Hotsa introduced feminist criticism and gender-sensitive translation studies into local academic discourse.By connecting the Canadian, international, and Ukrainian perspectives, the article demonstrates that feminist translation is not a uniform method but a diverse and dynamic practice shaped by sociopolitical contexts, historical conditions, and cultural negotiations.Ultimately, feminist translation is shown to be both a theoretical innovation and a political project, one that foregrounds translators as agents of cultural transformation and creators of alternative discourses.
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 | 0.049 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".