MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000416313 · doi:10.4000/traduire.368

Pratiques et perceptions de la révision en France

2009· article· fr· W2000416313 on OpenAlexaff
Katell Hernández Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueTraduire · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsHistorical Studies in Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Entre le 14 novembre et le 21 décembre 2007, nous avons soumis aux professionnels de la traduction un questionnaire en ligne portant sur la révision et la gestion de la qualité telles qu’ils la percevaient et la pratiquaient (ou non). Cette enquête s’inscrivait dans le cadre d’une thèse de doctorat dont le sujet était : La révision comme clé de la gestion de la qualité des traductions en contexte professionnel. Le public visé était les traducteurs, réviseurs, chefs de projets ou ...

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraduireSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207