An evaluation of tools for post-editing research:: the current picture and further needs

Lucas N Vieira

An evaluation of tools for post-editing research: the current picture and further needs

Lucas N Vieira

School of Modern Languages

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference Contribution (Conference Proceeding)

251 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative evaluation of four tools that can be used to collect
user activity data (UAD) in machine translation post-editing (PE) research: Tobii Studio, Translog-II, TransCenter, and PET. These tools are analysed here based on empirical data as a way of providing a picture of what the current state of research has to offer in terms of technology and investigation methods. After an analysis of the features offered by the tools, a summary is drawn and potential room for improvement in the field is identified.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Proceedings of the MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-2)
Subtitle of host publication	Nice, September 2, 2013
Pages	93-101
Number of pages	9
Publication status	Published - 2 Sept 2013

Access to Document

Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via MT Archive at http://www.mt-archive.info/10/MTS-2013-W2-TOC.htm. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Final published version, 612 KBLicence: CC BY-ND

http://www.mt-archive.info/10/MTS-2013-W2-TOC.htm

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@inproceedings{dd5828980d244f2586c817d309cbb260,

title = "An evaluation of tools for post-editing research:: the current picture and further needs",

abstract = "This paper presents a comparative evaluation of four tools that can be used to collect user activity data (UAD) in machine translation post-editing (PE) research: Tobii Studio, Translog-II, TransCenter, and PET. These tools are analysed here based on empirical data as a way of providing a picture of what the current state of research has to offer in terms of technology and investigation methods. After an analysis of the features offered by the tools, a summary is drawn and potential room for improvement in the field is identified. ",

author = "Vieira, \{Lucas N\}",

year = "2013",

month = sep,

day = "2",

language = "English",

pages = "93--101",

booktitle = "Proceedings of the MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-2)",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - An evaluation of tools for post-editing research:

T2 - the current picture and further needs

AU - Vieira, Lucas N

PY - 2013/9/2

Y1 - 2013/9/2

N2 - This paper presents a comparative evaluation of four tools that can be used to collect user activity data (UAD) in machine translation post-editing (PE) research: Tobii Studio, Translog-II, TransCenter, and PET. These tools are analysed here based on empirical data as a way of providing a picture of what the current state of research has to offer in terms of technology and investigation methods. After an analysis of the features offered by the tools, a summary is drawn and potential room for improvement in the field is identified.

AB - This paper presents a comparative evaluation of four tools that can be used to collect user activity data (UAD) in machine translation post-editing (PE) research: Tobii Studio, Translog-II, TransCenter, and PET. These tools are analysed here based on empirical data as a way of providing a picture of what the current state of research has to offer in terms of technology and investigation methods. After an analysis of the features offered by the tools, a summary is drawn and potential room for improvement in the field is identified.

M3 - Conference Contribution (Conference Proceeding)

SP - 93

EP - 101

BT - Proceedings of the MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice (WPTP-2)

ER -

An evaluation of tools for post-editing research: the current picture and further needs

Abstract

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this