Os serviços de interpretação de Língua Brasileira de Sinais nas Universidades e nos Institutos Federais: a percepção de docentes surdos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente trabalho investiga a percepcao de docentes Surdos em atuacao em universidades e institutos federais sobre os servicos de interpretacao de Lingua Brasileira de Sinais nesses espacos. Para isso, desenvolvemos um questionario online sinalizado, baseado nos Padroes de Boas Praticas e de Etica apresentados no National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services, proposto como guia para a atuacao de interpretes comunitarios no Canada. Assim, um questionario online sinalizado composto por 27 perguntas foi aplicado e obtivemos a participacao de 45 docentes Surdos, atuantes em universidades e institutos federais de 18 estados brasileiros e do Distrito Federal. Os resultados indicam que, de acordo com a percepcao dos docentes Surdos, os servicos de interpretacao de Libras-Portugues nessas instituicoes ainda nao atendem satisfatoriamente aos principios de qualidade constantes no guia canadense. Mostraram-se ainda como pontos criticos do servico: a fidelidade e a acuracia, a imparcialidade e a qualidade em tarefas de interpretacao-voz.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".