MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036164630

Articulating resistance : translating Acadie & Ireland as post-colonial and subaltern

2009· dissertation· en· W7036164630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytochemistry and Biological Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTubulopathyDiafiltrationDerogationPretext
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis addresses the comparison of Subaltern Acadie and Ireland and the resistance in translation that they manifest to counter colonialism and Empire. Though separated temporally, Ireland and Acadie share key characteristics: a basis in orality, post-colonial history, and Subaltern status. These qualities provide a common grouond for the comparative analysis of how both societies access discourses of power - an effort manifested through translation. The corpus consists of: Acadie - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's Évangéline and its French Canadian translation by Pamphile LeMay; Ireland - Tain Bo Cualgne and its English translations by Lady Augusta Gregory ( Cuchulàin of Muirthemne ) and Joseph Dunn ( The Ancient Irish Epic Tale Tàin Bo Cualgne, The Cualgne Cattle Raid ). The Acadien text manifests passive resistance by repeating historical inaccuracies, emphasizing Orientalizing practices and essentialism, and the insertion of LeMay's political ideology into the translated text. The Irish texts manifest active resistance through Irish nationalist-oriented translations that can be twinned with temporality and key political events, and widely variant translations that demonstrate Ireland's long translation history and tradition. In terms of methodology, this thesis draws upon research and theories from: Post-Colonial Studies, Translation Studies, as well as Acadien and Irish political and cultural history.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicPhytochemistry and Biological ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207