Personality Traits and Translation Quality: An Investigation of the Relationship in Iran Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different translators with different personality traits make variant decisions in their translations. In this study, the effect of personality traits of Iranian translators on their performance quality was explored from a psychological perspective. In the first step, the BFI Test (Big Five-Factor Inventory) was administered to the 30 MA translation students in Tehran Islamic Azad University. In the second step, the researcher distributed two different English source texts among the participants for the purpose of translation. Having finished the task of translating, the target texts produced by the students were assessed to investigate the correlation between personality traits and the quality of the translation. Hence, three instructors of translation were recruited to evaluate the translations and correspondingly score them on the basis of Farahzad’s (1992). The analysis of the acquired results proved both of the hypotheses of the study. First, there was a positive relationship between personality traits and translators? performance quality in different text types and also, Psychological model of translators’ personality had a significant effect on assessing the translated works.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".