Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses consecutive and simultaneous interpreting from a strategic point of view. A concept of discourse-based mental modelling serves as a basis to describe the cognitive-linguistic processes and strategies underlying comprehension and production in interpreted bilingual communication. By contrast with processing in the monolingual context, the interpreting process is characterised by adverse conditions including above all the lack of semantic autonomy and the continuing presence of elements of the source language during different stages of processing. The strategies interpreters use will therefore necessarily differ from those used in monolingual communication and will be adapted to the specific requirements of the interpreting process. Characteristic difficulties of interpreting and corresponding strategic processes are discussed with reference to the communicative transfer relation between source and target discourse, the sequential organisation of source discourse comprehension and target discourse production in consecutive interpreting, the parallel organisation of source discourse comprehension and target discourse production in simultaneous interpreting, and the complexity of content andlor linguistic representation of the source discourse. In an empirical analysis, a bit of simultaneous discourse is studied along with introspective data on the processes at work during production. The introspective data was obtained by means of a retrospective thinking-aloud protocol. Product-related and process-related data indicate that the strategies discussed are used in real-life interpreting situations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it