MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281229090 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v6n1p13

Sociolinguistic Influences on the Quality of Interpreting for Foreign African Immigrants in South African Courtrooms

2016· article· en· W2281229090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sam Erevbenagie Usadolo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpreterImmigrationQuality (philosophy)Equivalence (formal languages)Principal (computer security)Code-switchingSocial psychologyCode (set theory)SociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLinguisticsLawComputer scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study presents some sociolinguistic influences on the quality of interpreting for foreign African immigrants in South African courtrooms. Data was collected using observation of courtroom proceedings and unstructured interviews. The sociolinguistic influences identified can be linked to factors such as the notion of equivalence, misunderstandings about the role of the interpreter by principal actors, code-switching, and interpreting in the first person and third person by interpreters. These factors are discussed in terms of their negative influences on the quality of interpreting and how they can be mitigated. Finally, based on the identified limitation of the study, suggestions for further study are given.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207