Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results gathered from a project implemented by an interdisciplinary project team between 2007 and 2009, which focused on interpreting in social service and welfare institutions ( Community Interpreting und Kommunikationsqualität im Sozial- und Gesundheitswesen [Community Interpreting and Communication Quality in Social Service and Healthcare Institutions] ). One of the aspects investigated by the project was the interpreting practice at two Austrian municipal social service and welfare institutions via in-depth interviews and recordings of authentic interpreter-mediated encounters. After a brief overview of the history of gatekeeping theory and the application of the gatekeeping concept in Translation and Interpreting Studies, some of the project results are analysed using one specific model of gatekeeping theory proposed by Shoemaker and Vos in 2009. Taking a leaf from this work, the analysis is based on five different levels, namely the individual level, communication routines, the organisation level, the social institutional level, and the social system level. The analysis investigates “gates” present in the communication routines at the two institutions and which may prevent non-German speaking clients from full access and understanding, as well as the role of interpreters as “gatekeepers.”
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".