MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513872679 · doi:10.5539/elt.v8n7p152

Review on China Accreditation Test for Translators and Interpreters (CATTI)

2015· article· en· W1513872679 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Zou, Wenxin Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricAccreditationInterpreterPsychologyTest (biology)ChinaReliability (semiconductor)Interpretation (philosophy)Test validityMedical educationMathematics educationLinguisticsPolitical sciencePsychometricsComputer scienceClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its first pilot study was launched in 2003, China Accreditation Test for Translators and Interpreters (CATTI) has developed into the most authoritative translation and interpretation proficiency qualification accreditation test in China and played an important role in assessing and cultivating translaters and interpreters. Based on the analysis of its form and content, the current study appraises CATTI in terms of reliability, validity, practicality, fairness and washback. The results suggest that CATTI has a satisfying validity and reliability, but the amount and types of test items, test content, evaluation rubrics and transparency are expected to be improved.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207