MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043897528 · doi:10.7202/011017ar

Quality Assurance for Interpreting Processes

2005· article· en· W2043897528 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvia Kalina

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpreterQuality assuranceQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceWork (physics)EngineeringOperations managementEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses how the quality issue in conference interpreting can be approached using a scheme for quality assurance. Participants in conferences have different roles and not always the same preferences, while interpreters depend on speakers and may have to work for heterogeneous audiences. On the basis of a model of mediated multilingual conference communication, interpreting processes and conditions can be analysed with the aid of a list of parameters; the list can be used by clients and conference interpreters for their overall and personal quality assurance.

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)0.218
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.349
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2180.349
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations109
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207