La recherche en enseignement de la traduction au Canada : survol historique et enjeux actuels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les projets éducatifs répondent aux besoins d’un groupe social en particulier. Au Canada, la formation des traducteurs a été conçue dans le but, entre autres, de contribuer aux efforts d’amélioration de la qualité de la langue française (Juhel, 1982; Horguelin, 1984). Les stratégies didactiques utilisées par les premiers formateurs ont ainsi favorisé l’instauration d’une tradition d’enseignement à visée corrective qui résiste à l’épreuve du temps et qui a essaimé au-delà des frontières canadiennes. Des universitaires canadiens sont en effet à l’origine de deux des principales approches d’enseignement de la traduction, toutes traditions confondues : l’approche comparative (Vinay et Darbelnet, 1958) et l’approche par objectifs d’apprentissage (Delisle, 1980). Après avoir retracé l’émergence de ces approches et décrit ce qui a contribué à leur succès, je m’interrogerai sur les enjeux actuels relatifs à la recherche sur l’enseignement de la traduction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".