مقایسۀ کیفیت و سرعت ترجمۀ پساویرایش‌شده و ترجمۀ انسانی مترجمان مبتدی

Alves, F., Koglin, A., Mesa-Lao, B., Martínez, M. G., de Lima Fonseca, N. B., de Melo Sá, A., Gonçalves, J. L., Szpak, K. S., Sekino, K., & Aquino, M. (2016). Analysing the impact of interactive machine translation on post-editing effort. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 77–94). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_4

Alves, F., Szpak, K., Gonçalve, J., Sekino, K., Aquino, M., Castro, R., Koglin, A., & Fonseca, N. (2016). Investigating cognitive effort in post-editing: A relevance-theoretical approach. Language Science Press, 2, 109–142. https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b108.296

Aranberri, N., Labaka, G., Diaz de Ilarraza, A., & Sarasola, K. (2014). Comparison of post-editing productivity between professional translators and lay users. In S. O’Brien, M. Simard, & L. Specia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (p. 20–33). Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.

Aziz, W., Castilho, S., & Specia, L. (2012). PET: A tool for post-editing and assessing machine translation. In In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 3982–3987). European Language Resources Association.

Carl, M. (2012). Translog-ii: A program for recording user activity data for empirical reading and writing research. In In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. U. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (pp. 4108–4112). European Language Resources Association.

Carl, M., Dragsted, B., Elming, J., Hardt, D., & Jakobsen, A. L. (2011). The process of post-editing: A pilot study. In B. Sharp, M. Zock, M. Carl, & A. L. Jakobsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international NLPCS workshop (pp. 131–142). Copenhagen Studies in Language.

Cumbreño, C., & Aranberri, N. (2021). What do you say? Comparison of metrics for post-editing effort. In M. Carl (Ed.), Explorations in empirical translation process research (pp. 57–79). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69777-8_3

Daems, J., Vandepitte, S., Hartsuiker, R., & Macken, L. (2017). Translation methods and experience: A comparative analysis of human translation and post-editing with students and professional translators. Meta, 62(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.7202/1041023ar

Eyckmans, J., Anckaert, P., & Segers, W. (2009). The perks of norm-referenced translation evaluation. In C. V. Angelelli & H. E. Jacobson (Eds.), Testing and assessment in translation and interpreting studies (pp. 73–94). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Garcia, I. (2010). Is machine translation ready yet. Target, 22(1), 7–21.

Hutchins, W. J., & Somers, H. L. (1992). An introduction to machine translation. Academic Press.

Jia, Y., Carl, M., & Wang, X. (2019). How does the post-editing of neural machine translation compare with from-scratch translation? A product and process study. The Journal of Specialised Translation, 31, 60–86.

Koby, G. S. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Post-editing of machine translation output: Who, what, why, and how (much). In H. P. Krings, Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes (pp. 1–24). Kent State University Press.

Koehn, P. (2009). A process study of computer-aided translation. Machine Translation, 23, 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-010-9076-3

Krings, H. P. (2001). Repairing texts: Empirical investigations of machine translation post-editing processes. Kent State University Press.

Läubli, S., Amrhein, C., Düggelin, P., Gonzalez, B., Zwahlen, A., & Volk, M. (2019). Post-editing productivity with neural machine translation: An empirical assessment of speed and quality in the banking and finance domain. In M. Forcada, A. Way, B. Haddow, & R. Sennrich (Eds.), Proceedings of machine translation summit XVII: Research (pp. 267–272). European Association for Machine Translation.

Lee, J., & Liao, P. (2011). A comparative study of human translation and machine translation with post-editing. Compilation & Translation Review, 4(2). 105–149.

Nitzke, J., & Oster, K. (2016). Comparing translation and post-editing: An annotation schema for activity units. In M. Carl, S. Bangalore, & M. Schaeffer (Eds.), New directions in empirical translation process research: Exploring the CRITT TPR-DB (pp. 293–308). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20358-4_14

O'Brien, S. (2005). Methodologies for measuring the correlations between post-editing effort and machine translatability. Machine Translation, 19, 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-005-2467-1

O'Brien, S. (2007). Eye-tracking and translation memory matches. Perspectives, 14(3), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09076760708669037

Plitt, M., & Masselot, F. (2010). A productivity test of statistical machine translation post-editing in a typical localisation context. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics, 93, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10108-010-0010-x

Skadiņš, R., Puriņš, M., Skadina, I., & Vasiļjevs, A. (2011). Evaluation of SMT in localization to under-resourced inflected language. In M. L. Forcada, H. Depraetere, & V. Vandeghinste (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (pp. 35–40). European Association for Machine Translation.

Vieira, L. N. (2014). Indices of cognitive effort in machine translation post-editing. Machine Translation, 28, 187–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-014-9156-x