Précis-writing, Revision and Editing: Piloting the European Master in 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
The paper reports on and discusses the authors’ development of and experience with Précis-writing, revision and editing , a pilot module developed especially for the European Master in Translation (EMT). The background, aim and important characteristics of the EMT are briefly explained. Inspired by the IAMLADP report from 2001, the module development included an exploratory survey of the translation industry internationally and in Denmark, employing web-based questionnaires supplemented by a focus-group interview with translator-editors of the European Commission. Our findings generated knowledge about professional précis-writing, revision and editing, including relevant norms and concepts. It also provided useful input on perceived training needs in this respect within the translation profession. The module development also comprised selecting a suitable theoretical foundation and designing a manageable course structure. Students’ written evaluations of a course taught in the spring of 2005 are summarized, and the paper concludes with the authors’ recommendations for others involved in university-level translator training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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