Contemporary Anglophone Collections of Ukrainian Poetry: The Editor as a Strategic and Creative Partner to the Translator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a typology of editorial positioning in translation publications, examines editorial practices in contemporary Anglophone anthologies of Ukrainian poetry, and analyzes the efficacy of such collaborations within the Anglophone intercultural space. While translators, under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1979), secure copyright for their translations, it is the editors who dictate the strategic trajectory of Ukrainian literature’s entry into the Anglophone, and thus, global market. This study is grounded in the analysis of Anglophone editions of Ukrainian poetry published within the last decade (2014–2024) in the UK, Canada, and the USA, with a particular focus on a comparative analysis of two editorial practices in Anglophone editions of Natalka Bilotserkivets’ poetry. Consequently, the editorial practices of E. Kinsella and Dzv. Orlovska for the 2021 collection (in their own translations) and M. Naydan for the 2022 edition, which united a range of translators, are analyzed. It is outlined that their practices give a representative example of two key editorial tendencies: the “reconstructive,” which mirrors the structure of original editions (M. Naydan), and the “recontextualizing,” where editors conceptually reshape the structure and presentation of translated works for a new linguistic audience (E. Kinsella and Dzv. Orlovska). Two crucial criteria for editorial positioning are identified: 1) the selection and presentation of translated texts; 2) the approach to paratextual preparation. The article emphasizes that editors of translated anthologies not only provide linguistic-technical control but also act as strategic curators and cultural advocates, shaping the interpretive space and determining the potential reception of translations in the literary market and society.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".