La perception de la littérature française moderne en Chine au travers de la revue Xiandai-Les contemporains (1932 -1935) : traduction, critique et prescription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Shanghai-based literary journal Xiandai enjoys a great reputation thanks to the quality of the contributors assembled by its editor-in-chief, Shi Zhecun. It is praised for its artistic importance, and its title is associated with the emergence of urban modernity in China. Yet its content, largely translations, has been only partially analyzed.This thesis aims to shed light on how Chinese writer-translators perceive French literary production. Investigating the training of these authors, their literary culture, the availability of texts, and the ways in which they were imported into China allows us to examine the choices made for translations from French. Xiandai, unlike many Chinese literary journals of its time, was not the organ of a literary society. It distinguished itself by its openness to foreign literature, particularly French and English-language sources, ahead of Russian and Japanese sources. The multiplicity of literary genres included, and the importance given to poetry and storytelling, are highlighted, providing insight into how the translators understood the contribution of these genres to literary modernism.Xiandai is also notable for the novel nature of its translations and the inclusive eclecticism it displays, with the quality of "modern" being the main criterion for selecting texts. Launched with the intention of political neutrality in a climate constrained by censorship, it gradually freed itself from this principle and shifted its focus toward communism and pacifism. Its focus on Europe is not unrelated to this commitment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".