MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1950884538 · doi:10.7202/013266ar

배경지식이 번역 과정에 미치는 영향

2006· article· ko· W1950884538 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hea-kyung Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2006
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

번역이란 이종 문화 간 의사소통 행위이며 번역사는 그 두 개의 서로 다른 문화 간 가교 역할을 담당하는 의사 소통자이다. 그렇다면 이 의사 소통자가 훌륭하게 자신의 역할을 수행하려면 어떤 종류의 능력을 갖추어야 할 것인가? 이러한 질문을 바탕으로 본 논문은 번역 행위에서 가장 중요한 요소 가운데 하나인 배경 지식이 번역 과정에 미치는 영향을 이론적으로 고찰해보고자 한다. 이를 위해 먼저 번역사의 행위로서의 번역 과정을 연구하되, 번역 과정에 대한 기존의 연구를 소개함과 더불어 번역 과정을 분석한 다음, 이를 출발어 텍스트의 읽기 및 이해 과정인 제 1 단계 그리고 재 표현 과정인 도착어 텍스트 생산 단계 즉 제 2 단계로 나누어 소개하고자 한다. 마지막으로 배경 지식이 이 번역 과정에 미치는 영향을 분석함으로써 배경 지식의 중요성을 강조하고 번역 교육의 적절한 방향을 위한 하나의 기준을 제시하고자 한다.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteurs→Same topicMilitary Technology and Strategies→French-language works237,207→