A explicação do erro em didática da tradução: erro no processo ou erro no produto?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A influência emocional e psicológica que a explicação dos erros de tradução exerce sobre os alunos torna muito importante o estudo desse tema para a didática da tradução. Este artigo apresenta uma pesquisa exploratória subjetiva sobre o assunto, mas que inclui o fator quantitativo por meio da análise comparativa das entrevistas semiestruturadas aplicadas a dois grupos de professores de tradução pertencentes a duas universidades distintas, uma no Canadá, outra na Colômbia. A pesquisa destacou a importância de reconhecer o processo tradutório dos alunos a fim de explicar os seus erros, e a influência do contexto acadêmico e global do país na didática desenvolvida pelos professores estudados. Tais resultados foram colocados em perspectiva quanto às condições materiais de ensino, diferentes para cada grupo. Hipóteses e orientações didáticas são propostas no fim do artigo. Palavras-chave: erro de tradução; didática; processo tradutório; interferência.L’explication de l’erreur en didactique de la traduction: erreur dans le processus ou erreur dans le produit?Résumé: L’influence émotionnelle et psychologique sur les étudiants que manifeste l’explication de l’erreur en traduction rend ce sujet très important a étudier en didactique de la traduction. Cet article présente une recherche exploratoire sur ce sujet, subjective mais incluant le facteur quantitatif par l’analyse comparative des entretiens semi structurés appliqués à deux groupes d’enseignants de traduction qui appartiennent a deux universités distinctes, l’une au Canada, l’autre en Colombie. Cette recherche a mis en évidence l’importance de reconnaître le processus de traduction des étudiants afin d’expliquer leurs erreurs, et l’influence du contexte académique et global du pays sur la didactique développée par les enseignants étudiés. Ces résultats ont été mis en perspective concernant les conditions matérielles de l’enseignement, différentes pour chaque groupe. Des hypothèses et des recommandations didactiques sont proposées en fin d’article.Mots clés: erreur de traduction, didactique, processus traductif, interférence.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".