La recherche sur les processus traductionnels et la formation en interprétation de conférence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche sur les processus cognitifs accompagnant l’interprétation de conférence est largement fondée sur des théories conçues en psychologie cognitive qu’il est difficile de valider par des procédures empiriques, notamment en raison de la complexité des processus et de la variabilité qui en résulte sur le plan holistique de la prestation. Les ressources institutionnelles et humaines de la communauté traductologique sont insuffisantes pour espérer un changement radical et de nombreuses applications didactiques immédiates. En revanche, les concepts et modèles développés ont une intéressante valeur explicative. Une recherche sur les processus plus proche des actions concrètes, telle qu’elle est menée par les traductologues de l’écrit, pourrait avoir des retombées didactiques directes plus nombreuses.
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 | 0.026 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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".