Bologna, EMT and CIUTI – Approaches to High Quality in Translation and Interpretation Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of products and services, as well as methods of quality control are receiving more and more attention in industry, education, training and research. Translation and interpretation-related approaches towards better quality control include the generic ISO 9000 series (first published in 1987) as well as translation-specific standards such as the German DIN 2345 (1996), the American SAE J2450 (2001, 2005), and the European DIN EN 15038 (2006). CIUTI, an organization initiated in 1960, is the earliest approach to ensure high quality standards in translation and interpretation training and research. The European Higher Education Reform (Bologna Process), completed in 2010, was also a chance to improve the quality of university translation and interpretation programmes. Another and strictly outcome-oriented approach to improve translation quality is the relatively recent EMT project of the EU Commission. This paper describes how the different approaches of the Bologna Process, EMT, and CIUTI contribute to translation quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".