Evidence of Parallel Processing During Translation
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
Three eye tracking experiments test the hypothesis that translation involves parallel rather than sequential processing of the source and target texts. In Experiment 1, a group of professional translators translated texts from their native language Danish into English. The texts included both segments where the order of verb and subject was congruent between source and target text and segments that were non-congruent. Translators gazed significantly longer at the non-congruent segments of the source text, indicating that the structure of the target text is anticipated during source text reading. Two follow-up experiments on first and second language reading demonstrate that this congruence effect in translation is not the result of the non-congruent Danish segments being inherently more difficult than the congruent ones and that the effect is not a general effect in bilingual reading. We conclude that translation is a parallel process and that literal translation is likely to be a universal initial default strategy in translation. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that all three experiments were relatively naturalistic, due to the combination of remote eye tracking and mixed-effects regression modeling.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it