MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113042882 · doi:10.7202/002135ar

Towards a Methodology for a Corpus-Based Approach to Translation Evaluation

2002· article· en· W2113042882 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lynne Bowker

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainerTask (project management)Computer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Natural language processingTranslation (biology)Simple (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceProgramming languageEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translation evaluation is undoubtedly one of the most difficult tasks facing a translator trainer. It is unlikely that there will ever be a ready-made formula that will transform this task into a simple one; however, this article suggests that the task can be made somewhat easier by using a specially designed Evaluation Corpus that can act as a benchmark against which translator trainers can compare student translations.

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)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0160.013
Open science0.0090.013
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.521
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.140 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations106
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207