Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Polish term or phrase:
praca przyczynkarska
English translation:
minor contribution, insignificant contribution, trivial contribution
Added to glossary by
Marcin Miłkowski
Dec 9, 2014 19:07
9 yrs ago
7 viewers *
Polish term
Praca przyczynkarska
Polish to English
Science
Idioms / Maxims / Sayings
Kontekst:
„Bez tego będzie to jedynie praca przyczynkarska, poszerzająca wprawdzie naszą wiedzę, ale nie pogłębiająca jej.”
Szukam terminu, który będzie odpowiednio pejoratywny. Nie chodzi po prostu o nieoryginalne prace, ani o prace powierzchowne, lecz właśnie takie czysto przyczynkowe. Odpowiedniki słownikowe są dosyć beznadziejne (exiguous contribution u Stanisławskiego) lub kuriozalne (contributory w Kościuszce).
„Bez tego będzie to jedynie praca przyczynkarska, poszerzająca wprawdzie naszą wiedzę, ale nie pogłębiająca jej.”
Szukam terminu, który będzie odpowiednio pejoratywny. Nie chodzi po prostu o nieoryginalne prace, ani o prace powierzchowne, lecz właśnie takie czysto przyczynkowe. Odpowiedniki słownikowe są dosyć beznadziejne (exiguous contribution u Stanisławskiego) lub kuriozalne (contributory w Kościuszce).
Proposed translations
(English)
Change log
Dec 10, 2014 02:34: geopiet changed "Language pair" from "English to Polish" to "Polish to English"
Proposed translations
3 days 39 mins
Selected
minor extension (of previous,existing work)
This word does not derogate much the work in question and relates to the major, seminal work in the field. A trivial extension is a possibility too, but is a put down.
cccccccccccccc
The only significant results in the paper are a minor extension of previous work
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dahlin/professional/parbery-refere...
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
Insufficient contribution (does not advance
the field, a minor extension of existing work,
there is no ‘gap in our understanding’)
http://is.uniag.sk/dok_server/slozka.pl?id=2892;download=611...
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
So many publications are minor extension of known research results
http://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170871-scalable-confe...
cccccccccccccc
The only significant results in the paper are a minor extension of previous work
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dahlin/professional/parbery-refere...
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
Insufficient contribution (does not advance
the field, a minor extension of existing work,
there is no ‘gap in our understanding’)
http://is.uniag.sk/dok_server/slozka.pl?id=2892;download=611...
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
So many publications are minor extension of known research results
http://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2014/1/170871-scalable-confe...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Naprowadziło mnie to na kolejny fajny odpowiednik. Moje wersje lecą do glosariusza, mam nadzieję, że też się komuś przydadzą :)"
+1
34 mins
ancillary/adjunctive/peripheral work in the field
A few options that may fit.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
George BuLah (X)
: If I could make a like, I think I like very much a "peripheral" in the context
2 days 18 hrs
|
I like you too. This fits the Asker's criterion and is still true to the meaning of przyczynkarski.
|
1 hr
review article/paper
Research article/paper = contains original research
Review articel/paper = does not contain original research, but attempts to summmarize current state of undertstanding on a given topics.
See:
A research article is a primary source...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors. The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors, and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.
Research articles follow a particular format. Look for:
A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study. This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of exisiting studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
A methods section, where authors desribe how they collected and analyzed data. Statistical analyses are included. This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis. Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
In the discussion, authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
References or works cited are always included. These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.
A review article is a secondary source...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own. Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies. For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the exisiting literature on a topic. If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!
http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_betw...
NOTE from me: "article" and "paper" are synonymous.
WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER?
The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers.
A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.
Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:
Scientific American
Science in the "Perspectives" and "Reviews" sections
Nature in the "News and Views" section
Compilations of reviews such as:
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology
Annual Review of Physiology
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Almost every scientific journal has special review articles.
You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized.
Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology).
A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.
The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject. You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.
http://www.uwlax.edu/biology/communication/ReviewPapers.html
Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic.[1] They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[2][3]
An expert's opinion is valuable, but an expert's assessment of the literature can be more valuable. When reading individual articles, readers could miss features that are apparent to an expert clinician-researcher. Readers benefit from the expert's explanation and assessment of the validity and applicability of individual studies.[4]
Review articles come in the form of systematic reviews and literature reviews and are a form of secondary literature.[5] Systematic reviews determine an objective list of criteria, and find all previously published original experimental papers that meet the criteria. They then compare the results presented in these papers. Literature reviews, by contrast, provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications.
Some academic journals likewise specialize in review of a field; they are known as review journals.
The concept of "review article" is separate from the concept of peer-reviewed literature. It is possible for a review to be peer-reviewed, and it is possible for a review to be non-peer-reviewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article#
Review articel/paper = does not contain original research, but attempts to summmarize current state of undertstanding on a given topics.
See:
A research article is a primary source...that is, it reports the methods and results of an original study performed by the authors. The kind of study may vary (it could have been an experiment, survey, interview, etc.), but in all cases, raw data have been collected and analyzed by the authors, and conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.
Research articles follow a particular format. Look for:
A brief introduction will often include a review of the existing literature on the topic studied, and explain the rationale of the author's study. This is important because it demonstrates that the authors are aware of exisiting studies, and are planning to contribute to this existing body of research in a meaningful way (that is, they're not just doing what others have already done).
A methods section, where authors desribe how they collected and analyzed data. Statistical analyses are included. This section is quite detailed, as it's important that other researchers be able to verify and/or replicate these methods.
A results section describes the outcomes of the data analysis. Charts and graphs illustrating the results are typically included.
In the discussion, authors will explain their interpretation of their results and theorize on their importance to existing and future research.
References or works cited are always included. These are the articles and books that the authors drew upon to plan their study and to support their discussion.
A review article is a secondary source...it is written about other articles, and does not report original research of its own. Review articles are very important, as they draw upon the articles that they review to suggest new research directions, to strengthen support for existing theories and/or identify patterns among exising research studies. For student researchers, review articles provide a great overview of the exisiting literature on a topic. If you find a literature review that fits your topic, take a look at its references/works cited list for leads on other relevant articles and books!
http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_betw...
NOTE from me: "article" and "paper" are synonymous.
WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER?
The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers.
A review paper is not a "term paper" or book report. It is not merely a report on some references you found. Instead, a review paper synthesizes the results from several primary literature papers to produce a coherent argument about a topic or focused description of a field.
Examples of scientific reviews can be found in:
Scientific American
Science in the "Perspectives" and "Reviews" sections
Nature in the "News and Views" section
Compilations of reviews such as:
Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Current Opinion in Genetics & Development
Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology
Annual Review of Physiology
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
Almost every scientific journal has special review articles.
You should read articles from one or more of these sources to get examples of how your paper should be organized.
Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public. There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology).
A key aspect of a review paper is that it provides the evidence for a particular point of view in a field. Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view. In addition, you should inform the reader of the experimental techniques that were used to generate the data.
The emphasis of a review paper is interpreting the primary literature on the subject. You need to read several original research articles on the same topic and make your own conclusions about the meanings of those papers.
http://www.uwlax.edu/biology/communication/ReviewPapers.html
Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic.[1] They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[2][3]
An expert's opinion is valuable, but an expert's assessment of the literature can be more valuable. When reading individual articles, readers could miss features that are apparent to an expert clinician-researcher. Readers benefit from the expert's explanation and assessment of the validity and applicability of individual studies.[4]
Review articles come in the form of systematic reviews and literature reviews and are a form of secondary literature.[5] Systematic reviews determine an objective list of criteria, and find all previously published original experimental papers that meet the criteria. They then compare the results presented in these papers. Literature reviews, by contrast, provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications.
Some academic journals likewise specialize in review of a field; they are known as review journals.
The concept of "review article" is separate from the concept of peer-reviewed literature. It is possible for a review to be peer-reviewed, and it is possible for a review to be non-peer-reviewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article#
Note from asker:
To jest odpowiednik terminu „praca przeglądowa”. To jest zupełnie co innego – prace przyczynkarskie nie są szerokimi przeglądami badań i literatury. |
2 hrs
secondary literature/publication
The SECONDARY LITERATURE consists of publications that rely on primary sources
for information. Here it is not a requirement for the authors to have done the
work themselves, since the purpose of the publication is to summarise and
synthesize knowledge in a specific area for other scientists who already have an
understanding of the topic; however, the authors of secondary publications would
normally have worked and published primary literature in the area they are
writing about. The secondary literature includes review journals, monographic
books and textbooks, handbooks and manuals. Although normally written in a
scientific style, secondary publications are not organised in the same way that
primary publications are; however, it is a universal requirement that they are
fully referenced and that most of these references are to the primary literature.
Scientists use the secondary literature to gain an overview of research areas that
are close to or relevant to their own, or to familiarise themselves with existing
research in new topics on which they plan to start working.
https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/file/0006/42981/The_diff...
for information. Here it is not a requirement for the authors to have done the
work themselves, since the purpose of the publication is to summarise and
synthesize knowledge in a specific area for other scientists who already have an
understanding of the topic; however, the authors of secondary publications would
normally have worked and published primary literature in the area they are
writing about. The secondary literature includes review journals, monographic
books and textbooks, handbooks and manuals. Although normally written in a
scientific style, secondary publications are not organised in the same way that
primary publications are; however, it is a universal requirement that they are
fully referenced and that most of these references are to the primary literature.
Scientists use the secondary literature to gain an overview of research areas that
are close to or relevant to their own, or to familiarise themselves with existing
research in new topics on which they plan to start working.
https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/file/0006/42981/The_diff...
Note from asker:
To na pewno nie jest to. To jest „literatura przedmiotu” w odróżnieniu od „literatury podmiotu” w przypadku badań nad autorami; względnie literatura drugorzędowa. Ale te prace mogą być bardzo, ale to bardzo oryginalne, w przeciwieństwie do makulaturowego przyczynkarstwa. |
1 day 10 hrs
fragmentary
fragmentary research/ work/ study
tak troszke bardziej pejoratywnie niz Kosciuszko (contributory czy contributive to przeciez dokladnie na odwrot, mam wrazenie)
praca przyczynkarska to praca czastkowa, niekompletna
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days6 hrs (2014-12-12 01:44:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
IMO akurat przyklad z Leninem niezle by pasowal na prace fragmentaryczna (oczywiscie praca jest skonczona, ale temat niekoniecznie);
inna jeszcze mozliwosc to "unoriginal" w sensie, ze nic niewnoszaca do nauki
(podstawowym kryterium dla prac doktorskich jest wlasnie "contribution to knowledge", a tu zdaje sie nie byloby wielkiego wkladu);
stad nastepna propozycja to odwrocenie zdania: it will not be a major contribution to knowledge, moze sie na cos zda
tak troszke bardziej pejoratywnie niz Kosciuszko (contributory czy contributive to przeciez dokladnie na odwrot, mam wrazenie)
praca przyczynkarska to praca czastkowa, niekompletna
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days6 hrs (2014-12-12 01:44:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
IMO akurat przyklad z Leninem niezle by pasowal na prace fragmentaryczna (oczywiscie praca jest skonczona, ale temat niekoniecznie);
inna jeszcze mozliwosc to "unoriginal" w sensie, ze nic niewnoszaca do nauki
(podstawowym kryterium dla prac doktorskich jest wlasnie "contribution to knowledge", a tu zdaje sie nie byloby wielkiego wkladu);
stad nastepna propozycja to odwrocenie zdania: it will not be a major contribution to knowledge, moze sie na cos zda
Note from asker:
To może być praca cząstkowa, ale sama w sobie kompletna. Np. badanie interpunkcji w określonym liście Lenina do Nadieżdy Krupskiej to typowe przyczynkarstwo, ale może obejmować cały list ;) |
+2
2 days 17 hrs
supplemental / auxiliary / sideline
work, publication, paper
Note from asker:
http://scholar.google.pl/scholar?q=%22sideline+paper%22&btnG=&hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5 |
Peer comment(s):
agree |
George BuLah (X)
: sideline || same czarne widzę, nic nie widzę, słowem - widzę ciemność ;)
33 mins
|
dziękuję, ale "sideline" chyba odpada :( ... (zob. notkę powyżej)
|
|
agree |
Monika Wojewoda
1 hr
|
dziękuję
|
3 days 18 hrs
literature of rehash
(reharshing work)
rehash
To bring forth again in another form without significant alteration: rehashing old ideas.
2. To discuss again.
n. (rhsh)
The act or result of rehashing: a rehash of an old plot.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days18 hrs (2014-12-13 13:43:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
w każdym razie w kierunku "reharshing"
Reharshing work
tu: Reharshing literatur (w nieco innym kontekście):
http://www.corriveaucreations.com/mental-wandering-blog/reha...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days18 hrs (2014-12-13 13:43:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
literatur-e
rehash
To bring forth again in another form without significant alteration: rehashing old ideas.
2. To discuss again.
n. (rhsh)
The act or result of rehashing: a rehash of an old plot.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days18 hrs (2014-12-13 13:43:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
w każdym razie w kierunku "reharshing"
Reharshing work
tu: Reharshing literatur (w nieco innym kontekście):
http://www.corriveaucreations.com/mental-wandering-blog/reha...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days18 hrs (2014-12-13 13:43:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
literatur-e
Reference comments
2 mins
Reference:
literatura przyczynkarska
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/polish_to_english/history/5697556-...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 33 mins (2014-12-09 19:41:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
rozumiem, pamiętałam że niedawno pokazał się podobny termin, sądziłam, że może w jakiś sposób okaże się pomocny, nie wiedziałam, że tamte poszukiwania okazały się jałowe...
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 33 mins (2014-12-09 19:41:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
rozumiem, pamiętałam że niedawno pokazał się podobny termin, sądziłam, że może w jakiś sposób okaże się pomocny, nie wiedziałam, że tamte poszukiwania okazały się jałowe...
Note from asker:
Szukałka tego nie pokazała, ale tam jest zdecydowanie błędna odpowiedź wybrana. Contributory literature to po prostu contributions to the field. Prace przyczynkarskie to taka nauka normalna, normalne, coś tam warte badania, ale też oceniane negatywnie, bo słabe... I dlatego nazwałem hasło z Kościuszki kuriozalną propozycją. |
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree |
Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D.
12 mins
|
looks like we should be more carefull trusting ProZ translations ;-) greetings...
|
7 hrs
Reference:
Prace przyczynkowe
Prace przyczynkowe to prace stosunkowo drobne, polegające na wykonywaniu badań cząstkowych, mających sens jedynie ze względu na większe przedsięwzięcie naukowe. Prace te są wykonywane w obrębie tego przedsięwzięcia, na przykład niejako zlecone przez starszych pracowników naukowych w ramach działalności instytucji naukowej. Większość prac ogłaszanych na łamach czasopism naukowych należy właśnie do tej kategorii. Nazwa jej bierze się od przypuszczenia, że takie prace przyczyniają się do ogólnego postępu badań, a więc i do rozwoju wiedzy naukowej - http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praca_naukowa
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree |
Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D.
4 mins
|
dziękuję
|
|
agree |
George BuLah (X)
: w domu każą mi naprawiać zlew, odpadające kontakty; nie wiedziałem, że ja to robię zawsze przyczynkowo i potem nikt przez parę dni się do mnie nie odzywa, co traktuję jako - zysk :)
5 hrs
|
:)
|
Discussion
to cytat z linku Marcina; przynajmniej dla mnie w takim kontekscie przyczynkarstwo znaczeniowo znajduje sie o wiele blizej slowa "unoriginal" niz "contributory" (z calym szacunkiem dla tworcow slownikow, ale tutaj "uncontributory" chyba byloby lepsze:)); niestety pomimo poszukiwan dotychczas nie znalazlam zadnego blizszego okreslenia.
Jak ma być pejoratywnie, (ale rozwlekle) to proponuję:
"secondary work with no original research of minor (or minuscule, if you want to ridicule the author) scientific value" w skrócie: "secondary work of minor value"
:)))))
I was thinking about 'meaningless publications' but it would definitely kill the author :(
A, może stworzymy tu kolegialnie i komisyjnie jakieś słowo, potem Frank albo Bubziu zawiozą do akceptacji do EN korpusu językowego, a jak już będzie podklepane i popieczętowane - wystawimy odpowiedź, hę ?
Kudoziki przeznaczymy solidarnie - jeszcze nie wiem na co, ale żeby było lepiej.
klapa
sam Pan napisał, że konteksty są różne, ale ani z podanej przez Pana definicji, ani z definicji, do których udało mi się dotrzeć nie wynika, że jest to termin nacechowany pejoratywnie. Ale jeżeli z szerszego kontekstu, którym Pan dysponuje, wynika, że właśnie tak trzeba ten termin zinterpretować i jednocześnie tak na ogół jest używany w gronie naukowców, to rozumiem, że jest to tylko jeden ze sposobów użycia tego terminu. Ja, osobiście, nie odbieram tego terminu pejoratywnie, ale ja nie należę do świata nauki.
Obawiam się, że jest to termin tak niejednoznaczny, jak np. przymiotnik "formalnoprawny", gdzie wyjaśnienie w poradni językowej prof. Jerzego Bralczyka też wzbudza pewne kontrowersje.
Dziękuję bardzo za odpowiedź i pozdrawiam, aczkolwiek pozostając zdania, że "contributory" nie jest błędem :)
Materiał przyczynkarski.
Przyczynkarskie artykuły, opracowania, rozprawy.
Praca o charakterze przyczynkarskim.”
Otóż w nauce takie prace dominują i – jak Pani może łatwo w wyszukiwarce zobaczyć – komplementem jest powiedzieć, że jakaś praca przyczynkarska NIE jest. To na odwrót niż w przypadku „contributory” i dlatego w słowniku jest błąd. Niestety, błędy są w każdym słowniku, co wiem dobrze, bo przecież redagowałem słowniki i jeden nadal redaguję… :/
rozumiem - z dyspozycji Mistera Askera, że - "poszerzanie" jest czymś negatywnym w kontekście, tudzież - pejoratywnym.
Zadajmy sobie zatem trud i pogłębmy wiedzę :).
Z całym szacunkiem do wszystkiego, z krewnymi wszystkich - włącznie, kontekst brzmi bełkotliwie (teraz - do autora mówię, nie do askera ;) i nie wiadomo, czego szukamy;
termin jest ulokowany w kontekście - w sposób bardziej rozmyty niż pozwala na to życie ... ;).
How wide is our knowledge ? :)
How deep is our knowledge ? :)
Może - dobrym oddaniem będzie coś w kierunku - digress/expatiate ?
(...) merely digressed/expatiated from (...)
... was just - Jarząbek ;) - thinking aloud ... now - mute :)
A ja proponuje więcej pokory i mniej zadufania w swoje wyczucie językowe. Ja rozumiem, że nie ma słowników idealnych, ale takie ich potraktowanie na forum translatorskim to jest dopiero kuriozum.
Jeżeli się uparłeś, że ten termin ma mieć znaczenie pejoratywne i to bardzo pejoratywne (sic !), to musisz z tym teraz żyć i sam sobie taki termin wymyślić.
Wielki Słownik Poprawnej Polszczyzny (do którego masz też pewnie luźne nastawienie) podaje:
przyczynek - cząstkowe opracowanie jakiejś kwestii, przydatne do jej wyjaśnienia; uzupełnienie.
"We hates it! We hates it forever!"