Prompting for Precision: Assessment of Translation Quality via Role-Based (Persona) Prompting in the Medical Texts Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper interrogates the transnational applicability of Western feminist translation theories, particularly those advanced by the Québec experimental school of translation, in the context of feminist writing from Odisha. By engaging with Pratibha Ray’s Punyotaya (The sacred river), it examines how feminist translation strategies function as both enabling and destabilizing forces within the regional literary canon. Translating Punyotaya through a feminist lens becomes an empowering ‘archaeological act’ that excavates the Odia literary canon to expose historically marginalized intersections of gender and translation. Such an endeavor allows the translator to intervene critically in patriarchal discourses by ‘reading both the author and the text as feminist,’ thereby re-signifying Odia women’s writing within the broader framework of feminist epistemology. At the same time, translating as a feminist foregrounds the translator’s subjectivity, making visible her gendered position as a co-creator of meaning and challenging the illusion of neutrality and fidelity. However, Punyotaya also problematizes the straightforward application of Western feminist translation strategies, demanding sensitivity to local gender politics and linguistic specificities. The paper thus argues that feminist translation must be re-contextualized through a decolonial and intersectional framework that acknowledges indigenous feminist thought while negotiating between theory, culture, and practice in reconstructing women’s literary agency in Odisha. Further, by situating translation as an ‘ethically charged’ ‘aesthetic practice,’ the study underscores the need to move beyond universalist models and toward plural, location-specific feminist methodologies grounded in vernacular feminist literary traditions.
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 | 0.084 | 0.413 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".