Co-creating a repository of best-practices for collaborative translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative translation has the potential for significantly changing how we translate content. However, successful deployment of this kind of approach is far from trivial, as it presents potential adopters with a rich and complex envelope of processes and technologies, whose respective impacts are still poorly understood. The present paper aims at facilitating this kind of decision making, by describing and cataloguing current best-practices in collaborative translation. More precisely, we present a collection of Design Patterns which was created collectively by a small group of practitioners, at a one-day roundtable hosted by the Translation Automation Users Society in October of 2011. This collection has been put on an open wiki site (www.collaborative-translation-patterns.com) in the hopes that other practitioners in the field will refine and augment it.
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 | 0.055 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".