MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897455045 · doi:10.1515/cjal-2018-0013

Stress as a Suprasegmental Phonological Shift in Translation: A New Category of Linguistic Shifts

2018· article· en· W2897455045 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Karimnia, Esmaeil Kalantari

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsStress (linguistics)PhonologyTranslation (biology)CategorizationComputer scienceGrammarDynamic and formal equivalenceNatural language processingPsychologyMachine translationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study relies on a contrastive analysis to underscore the functions of stress as a shift in translation, especially when phonological specifications can have an impact on translation. In the original model of translation shifts proposed by Catford, only segmental linguistic elements are taken into consideration, while the model totally ignores stress as a supra-segmental linguistic element. Including stress within the analytic procedures of the model can bring about a new type of shift. This implies that Catford’s categorization of shifts must be developed in order to increase its applicability, especially when phonological specifications in the source text can have an impact on grammar and lexical items in the target text. As a result of the inclusion of stress into Catford’s original mode, a revised version of the translation shift model is suggested. The study further emphasizes the various dimensions of stress and the functions it can have in oral aspects of translation and drama translation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of Applied LinguisticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207