Use of Google Translate for Translating Scientific Texts: An Investigation with Saudi English-Major Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English is not the first language in Saudi Arabia, which makes most students face problems with the most used language globally, consequently pushing most Saudis to use the Google Translate (GT) application. This paper reports the attitudes and perceptions of Saudi EFL students on using Google Translate, the strategies applied, the number of editions they make, and the reasons for amending the Google Translate outputs. The study sample comprised 43 English major students at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. A validated questionnaire was used for data collection, followed by translation tasks where the participants would do translations between English and Arabic languages. Results showed that most of the participants frequently used GT in their English learning. The results also indicated that Saudi EFL students frequently edited the syntax produced by GT in addition to checking the meaning of some new words. The study concludes with some recommendations, most importantly that Saudi EFL students should be motivated and encouraged to make use of GT to conserve their time; however, total dependency is not welcome.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it