MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004672535 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n2p184

Teaching Arabic Machine Translation to EFL Student Translators: A Case Study of Omani Translation Undergraduates

2020· article· en· W3004672535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasser Muhammad Naguib Sabtan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicMachine translationComputer scienceMathematics educationTranslation (biology)Focus (optics)Natural language processingTranslation studiesEnglish languageArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper describes a machine translation (MT) course taught to undergraduate students in the Department of English Language and Literature at Dhofar University in Oman. The course is one of the major requirements for BA in Translation. Fifteen EFL translation students who were in their third year of study were enrolled in the course. The author presents both the theoretical and practical parts of the course. In the theoretical part, the topics covered in the course are outlined. As for the practical part, it focuses on the translation students’ post-editing of online MT output. This is beneficial to the students as free online MT systems can potentially be used as a means for improving student translators’ training and EFL learning. This is achieved through subjecting MT output to analysis or post-editing by the students so that they can focus on the differences between the source and target languages. With this goal in mind, assignments were given to the students to post-edit the Arabic and English MT output of three free online MT systems (Systran, Babylon and Google Translate), discuss the linguistic problems that they spot for each system and choose the one that has the fewest number of errors. The results show that the students, with varying degrees of success, have managed to identify some linguistic errors with the MT output for each MT system and thus produced a better human translation. The paper concludes that there is a need to incorporate MT courses in translation departments in the Arab world, as integrating technology into translation curricula will have great effect on student translators’ training for their future career as professional translators.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207