MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884682583 · doi:10.7202/1050514ar

Reconciling Institutional and Professional Requirements in the Specialised Inverse Translation Class – A Case Study

2018· article· en· W2884682583 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patricia Rodríguez‐Inés, Olivia Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)CurriculumForeign languageComputer scienceGermanLanguage industryMathematics educationLanguage educationPedagogyLinguisticsSociologyPsychologyComprehension approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translating into a language that is not one’s native language is no easy task, but one which may be necessary in certain settings. If a market niche exists for professional translators whose working language is not their native language, as studies have shown it does in Spain, it seems appropriate that translation trainees should be encouraged to develop their competence in what is generally known in Translation Studies as inverse (A-B/C) translation, in order to satisfy market requirements. Given current European Higher Education Area (EHEA) requirements for training students for the professional workplace, most translation degree programs in universities in Spain include subjects in which students are required to translate into the foreign language. This paper describes an early attempt to reconcile institutional requirements (curriculum design, assessment, reporting) and professional requirements (development of translation and instrumental competences, together with so-called soft skills ) in the specialised inverse translation class in the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. A competence-based, learner-centred, process-oriented curriculum was instituted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.096 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207