Acknowledging the needs of computer-assisted translation tools users: the human perspective in human-machine translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of translation specialists poses a problem for the growing translation markets around the world. One of the solutions proposed for the lack of human resources is automated translation tools. In the last few decades, organisations have had the opportunity to increase their use of technological resources. However, there is no consensus on the way that technological resources should be integrated into translation service providers (TSP). The approach taken by this article is to set aside both 100% human translation and 100% machine translation (without human intervention), to examine a third, more realistic solution: interactive translation where humans and machines co-operate. What is the human role? Based on the conceptual framework of information systems and organisational sciences, we recommend giving users, who are mainly translators for whom interactive translation tools are designed, a fundamental role in the thinking surrounding the implementation of a technological tool.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".