MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555242570 · doi:10.7202/1037771ar

Hale, Sandra and Napier, Jemina (2013): Research Methods in Interpreting. A Practical Resource. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury, 456 p.

2016· article· en· W2555242570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Gile

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNew delhiResource (disambiguation)Library scienceArt historyArtGeographyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hale, Sandra and Napier, Jemina (2013): Research Methods in Interpreting. A Practical Resource. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury, 456 p.. An article from journal Meta (Volume 61, Number 2, August 2016, pp. 251-500), on Érudit.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.021
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.025
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.029

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207