Evolution of the Efficacy of the Translation Process in Translation Competence Acquisition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present PACTE’s measurement of and results for the variable “efficacy of the Translation Process” in its experiment on Translation Competence Acquisition (TCA). This is one of the variables that provide information about the acquisition of the strategic sub-competence. We define this variable as the relationship between the time taken to complete a translation task, its distribution in stages, and solution acceptability. We consider translation process efficacy to be based on an optimal relationship between solution acceptability and time, i.e. achieving maximum acceptability in minimum time. In that respect, our initial premise was that finding acceptable solutions should take less time as the TCA process advances.Our aim as regards this variable was to investigate whether, as Translation Competence is acquired, differences occur in terms of: (1) the time taken to carry out a translation task; (2) the distribution of the time spent on a translation task between stages; (3) the relationship between the time spent on a translation task and solution acceptability.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it