MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethical Analysis of AI-Enhanced Audiovisual Translation Tools

2024· article· en· W4401879176 on OpenAlexaff
Iulia Mihalache

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSubtitles and Audiovisual Media
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranslation (biology)Computer scienceNatural language processingMachine translationArtificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence and machine translation are revolutionizing the translation field, including audiovisual translation (A VT). Overall, the adoption of digital technologies in audiovisual translation services is driven by the desire to improve efficiency due to stringent deadlines for disseminating a wide array of content in multiple languages and on various platforms, enhance accessibility and inclusion and ensure quality. Machine translation and AI technologies are instrumental in automating and optimizing various aspects of A VT services. However, it is crucial to evaluate the ethical ramifications of these tools across technology in general, their artifacts, and their intended uses.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0170.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSubtitles and Audiovisual MediaFrench-language works237,207