MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017061399 · doi:10.4324/9781315678627-117

Subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing

2019· book-chapter· en· W3017061399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pablo Romero-Fresco

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSubtitles and Audiovisual Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing (SDH), known as captions in the US, Canada and Australia, may take the form of intralingual or interlingual translation. They may be “burnt in (open) or superimposed (closed)”, “prepared beforehand or delivered live”, “provided in an edited or (near) verbatim form”, and provide access to verbal as well as non-verbal (acoustic) information. Research on SDH started in the US in the early 1970s with a series of reception studies, mostly doctoral theses that explored the benefits of captions for deaf students. Live subtitling is “the real-time transcription of spoken words, sound effects, relevant musical cues, and other relevant audio information” to enable deaf or hard-of-hearing persons to follow a live audiovisual programme. Since their introduction in the US and Europe in the early 1980s, live subtitles have been produced through different methods: standard QWERTY keyboards, dual keyboard, Velotype and the two most common approaches, namely stenography and respeaking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSubtitles and Audiovisual MediaFrench-language works237,207