MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984775953 · doi:10.5539/elt.v7n11p46

Subtitling as a Pedagogical Tool for Language Teaching in Journalism Courses

2014· article· en· W1984775953 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucinéa Marcelino Villela

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyNoticeContext (archaeology)SyllabusComprehensionJournalismMathematics educationEnglish for specific purposesPedagogyLinguisticsSociologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to present and discuss some results produced by a research involving the use of English subtitles of some news videos from the webiste Reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com) with pedagogical reasons in a Brazilian context (Academic English for Journalism). We have developed the research during two semesters at UNESP (Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho). The professor in charge of the study has chosen the students of Journalism as the audience to whom the videos were presented. The assumptions of many theorists and experts in Audiovisual Translation were adopted as our Theoretical Sources. The first step of the study was the assessment of the syllabus of each course. This was very helpful as a guidance in order to choose the most relevant and interesting videos for students. After the evaluation of academic and professional interests, we chose some videos to insert appropriate subtitles, according to some strategies suggested by Panayota Georgakopoulou and Henrik Gottlieb. Finally we presented the videos during the English classes. At the first time, they were presented without subtitles just to notice the comprehension level of the students. After that, the videos were presented with English subtitles. As we first assumed, the students haven’t had the whole comprehension of specific details during the first presentation, they have just used their previous knowledge and the visual aids to help them in a superficial understanding of the news. As the subtitles appear, the process of communication was finally accomplished.

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)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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