Brokering understanding: Canadian deaf interpreters’ role and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports findings from semi-structured interviews with twelve Canadian deaf interpreter (DI) participants as part of a three-year study of language ideologies related to DIs. DIs are professional or amateur sign language interpreters and translators who are deaf and who may often but not always work as part of a team with hearing interpreters. When working with a hearing interpreter who uses the same national sign language, the DI’s role is often seen as meeting the needs of deaf clients who are viewed as lacking proficiency in a named language and/or who are viewed as monolingual in a named national sign language. This reflects normative language ideologies and conceptions of interpreting and translation. DI participants described their role in terms of their enhanced powers of understanding that elicited greater information from other deaf individuals than was apparent to a hearing interpreter. In addition, DI participants characterized their work as primarily translation, in a manner that accords with translation as the creation of meaning and as translanguaging that extends beyond named languages and deploys the individual’s full semiotic repertoire.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".