MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308590781 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v13n1p1

Subtitling Strategies of Verbal-Visual Components in The Social Dilemma

2022· article· en· W4308590781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Alohaidb, Nasrin Altuwairesh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSubtitles and Audiovisual Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonverbal communicationDilemmaRendering (computer graphics)PsychologyParaphraseFocus (optics)ImitationTypologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLinguisticsCommunicationSocial psychologySociologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread of technology and streaming platforms have highlighted the importance of audiovisual translation. Audiovisual materials consist of four components: verbal-acoustic, verbal-visual, nonverbal-visual, and nonverbal-acoustic. Subtitlers usually focus on rendering the verbal-acoustic component (i.e., the dialogue) and rarely focus on the verbal-visual component. Therefore, this article aims to identify the subtitling strategies used in rendering the verbal-visual components that are displayed simultaneously with the dialogue. The data are taken from the docudrama The Social Dilemma. Gottlieb’s (1992) typology is used to identify the applied subtitling strategies. The analysis demonstrates that the subtitler employed seven subtitling strategies: transfer, paraphrase, imitation, deletion, expansion, condensation, and resignation. Also, the results indicate that resignation was the most frequently used strategy. Finally, the study recommends that the subtitler considers all components in the subtitling process.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicSubtitles and Audiovisual MediaFrench-language works237,207