MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388814036 · doi:10.5430/elr.v12n2p70

Subtitling in the Streaming Era: A Comparative Analysis of Strategies Used to Translate Cultural References into Arabic

2023· article· en· W4388814036 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abeer Alfaify

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArabicMultimediaMedia studiesWorld Wide WebSociologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent frequent lockdowns, streaming platforms have become an essential part of people’s media consumption. Translation has played a key role in the rapid growth of these streaming services by allowing global access to different translated versions of their content. While the impact of these streaming services on the reconstruction of media production has been a reoccurring topic in media studies, their impact on translation is still relatively underresearched. With that in mind, this article aims to identify current translation tendencies by examining the translation strategies commonly used in subtitling cultural references (CRs) into Arabic on three of the primary streaming platforms (Netflix, OSN+ and Prime Video) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). This is particularly significant not only because most studies on cultural references focus on European languages and contexts, but also because the few studies examining Arabic subtitles are mainly focused on subtitles available on DVDs (Alfaify, 2020), fansubbing websites (Abdelaal, 2019) and satellite television (Thawabteh, 2014). Additionally—and contrary to the common practice, which tends to ignore the complex multimodal nature of the cultural references—this article examines both verbal and crossmodal cultural references and the patterns of rendering them in professional subtitles across the investigated streaming platforms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207