MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076133938 · doi:10.7202/013259ar

Differences in News Translation between Broadcasting and Newspapers: A Case Study of Korean-English Translation1

2006· article· en· W2076133938 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperLinguisticsTranslation (biology)Rendering (computer graphics)Broadcasting (networking)Literary translationComputer scienceAdvertisingHistoryMedia studiesSociologyArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study is to look into differences between broadcasting and newspaper news translation in their approaches to rendering the lead of the news report. For this purpose, the study analyzes shifts in English translations of Korean newspaper reports and compares them with the results of a previous study on broadcasting translation. The analysis suggests that while lead reduction is characteristic of broadcasting translation, lead expansion figures more prominently in newspaper translation. The paper gives a detailed account of these differences and offers some tentative explanations about what gives rise to them. It also discusses the differences in terms of the degree of latitude the translator exercises in editing the TT and their implications for different roles played by the translator in the two modes of translation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.228 · 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