Rhetoric, discourse and the surplus of meaning: innovations in First Nations' language bible translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been a noticeable push in recent years to produce contemporary literature to ensure the Cree language remains intact for future generations, Cree Bible translations remain some of the best known and used printed resources in the Cree language. Given the influence that these translations continue to exercise in Cree and Bible translation communities this study imagines a trajectory of future Bible translations into First Nations languages. The study begins with an extensive analysis of past translations into the Cree 'Y' dialect, their production as well as their reception. Chapter 2 contains an in-depth analysis of the history of William Mason's Cree translation into the 'Y' dialect. This supports and informs the development of a new translation method into Canadian indigenous languages in Chapter 3. This method highlights the rhetorical significance of elements of style and orality in the production and reception of Cree texts. In addition to this, it envisions a significant amount of discussion and innovation between Bible translators and Cree linguists surrounding the theories and practices that have guided Bible Translation thus far.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".