Plan-based Translation Assessment An Alternative to the Standard-based cut-the-feet-to-fit-the-shoes Style of Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of translation/interpreting is guided by a diversity of theories and so is the instruction of translation/interpreting, though arguably to a lesser extent. Yet, pedagogical assessment of translation, especially in relation to the assessment of translation works by students, mostly seem to fall into one kind, one which is overwhelmingly based on an imagined standard and concerned with accurate and adequate comformity to the standard. The author of this paper, while experimenting with game theory and problem-based learning in the teaching of translation and interpreting, has been rethinking the assessment process. As a result, he has developed what he sees as an alternative system of marking, one which he calls planbased assessment and which aims to mark a student’s work/performance against the specific plans formulated by the individual student in conjunction with the instructor rather than against the imagined singular homogeneous standard imposed by an authority. He believes that this system is more conducive than the conventional standard-based assessment to the teaching of translation/interpreting in liberal arts education as it facilitates the development of subjectivity, vision, different learning styles, creative/critical thinking power, and problem-identifying and -solving skills. In this paper, he will discuss the characteristics of plan-based assessment system in comparison to those presumably comprising the conventional system. Comparison will also be made to the sort of assessment advocated by functional theories of translation as they inspired and informed the construction of plan-based assessment. The paper will conclude with a case study of the use of plan-based assessment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".