COMPARISON OF SUBTITLING FOR THE DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTED ACCROSS COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subtitling for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (SDH) guidelines assume a prominent role in providing access to audiovisual materials by setting standards that enable the service providers to offer subtitles specifically tailored to cater for the needs and preference of the hearing-impaired viewers. In the absence of guidelines that do not take the viewers’ needs into account, the subtitles run the risk of adversely affecting the viewing experience of the deaf since it would vary from one supplier to the other. This article offers a descriptive analysis of the guidelines implemented in countries with ample experience in the production and broadcast of SDH, such as Canada, the UK and the USA, with the aim of discovering the prevailing norms in these varied socio-cultural contexts. The norms and conventions that regulate the provision of SDH services in these countries are compared to reveal not only their commonalities but also the issues that cause controversy and tend to vary across the different guidelines. The key parameters are grouped and discussed under four broad categories, namely, the layout and presentation of subtitles on screen, the temporal dimension, linguistic issues and non-linguistic information. The results of the analysis and comparison of the guidelines form a strong starting point for the development of guidelines which specifically cater for the needs and preferences of the Turkish deaf viewers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".