MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6910396119 · doi:10.4224/21274926

Machine translation: benefits and advantages of statistical machine translation and NRC's Portage

2015· report· en· W6910396119 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine translationService (business)Machine translation software usabilityStatistical analysisKey (lock)Statistical model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine translation has progressed remarkably in recent years, particularly since the advent of the new statistical paradigm. Among SMT systems, NRC's Portage is among the very best in the world, as repeatedly demonstrated in various international competitions. What is more, the system is currently being used to costeffective advantage by major language service providers in Canada, while being tested by businesses in other domains, as well as by the military and intelligence services in the United States.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.015

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→