Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community interpreting and translation enable public service providers and users to communicate in situations where they do not share the same language. These professions are essential for social equity and egalitarian access to legal, health, education and other services. Many countries with significant numbers of migrants or autochthonous language minorities have developed more or less satisfactory services and standards in this burgeoning subfield of translation and interpreting. Instances can be identified of countries that have made significant progress (e.g., Australia, Canada and Sweden) as well as of those which started only recently (e.g., Spain and Italy). In Arab countries, however, one can hardly find a reference to this subfield of translation studies, although situations requiring such interpreting and translation services are numerous. This paper describes and raises awareness of the status quo of community interpreting and translation in the Arab World. Three examples are focused on: Morocco as a country with a national language minority, the United Arab Emirates, as an affluent country hosting migrants, and Saudi Arabia, a country with a special religious position which hosts millions of pilgrims every year. The paper also includes recommendations based on migration and pilgrimage statistics and the experiences of the pioneering countries above.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".