Translation and Transfer of Knowledge in Encyclopedic Compilations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a focus on the economic, social, and political impetus for producing monuments to knowledge, this volume recognizes the encyclopedic compilation as the quintessential tool of enlightenment knowledge transfer. From its modern origins in seventeenth-century France, encyclopedic compilations met the need for the dissemination of information in a more flexible format, one that eschewed the limits of previous centuries of erudition. The rise of vernacular languages dovetailed with the demand for information in every sector, sparking competition among nations to establish the encyclopedic “paper empires” that became symbols of power and potential. In this edited collection, Clorinda Donato and Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink evaluate the long-overlooked phenomenon of knowledge creation and transfer that occurred in hundreds of translated encyclopedic compilations over the long eighteenth century. Analysing multiple instances of translated compilations, Translation and Transfer of Knowledge in Encyclopedic Compilations, 1680–1830 expands into the vast realm of the multilingual, encyclopedic compilation, the most tangible proof of the global enlightenment. Through the presentation of an extensive corpus of translated compilations, it argues that the true site of knowledge transfer resided in the transnational movement of ideas exemplified by these compendia. The encyclopedia came to represent the aspiring nation as a viable economic and political player on the world stage; the capability to tell knowledge through culture became the hallmark of a nation’s cultural capital, symbolic of its might and mapping the how, why, and where of the global eighteenth century.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".