Translation and Re-translation: The Memoirs of Eugénie de Montijo, Ex-Empress of\n France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
D. Appleton’s Memoirs of the Empress Eugénie, published in English in 1920 in New York and London and in translation in Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden, took a circuitous path to publication since the completion of the manuscript in Paris in 1908. The widow of Napoléon iii had contributed via interviews with her godson, Comte Maurice Fleury, stipulating posthumous publication. To protect the work from copyright infringement in the interim, Fleury and co-editor Theodore Stanton translated the French manuscript material into English and added content. A clandestine, anonymous “pre-edition” produced in 1908 established D. Appleton’s claim in Great Britain and the United States. The European publishers, expecting a French manuscript, were dismayed at translating a translation, while re-translation of their versions into English posed the greatest threat to copyright. By 1920, the work’s autobiographical, first-person narration had been modified to the third person and Fleury’s name added as author, but not all European editions followed suit. A mismatched set of supposedly identical translations was the result.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".