|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 102
Appendix 15
Evaluation by Science Editors of
Joint Publications Research Service and
Foreign Technology Division Translations
Five Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS) translations and
five Foreign Technology Division (FTD) translations (four post-
edited machine translations and one unedited rough-draft human
translation) were sent to six science editors of the American As-
sociation for the Advancement of Science and to one translation-
agency owner. The translations were ranked according to their
quality as scientific writings. The JPRS translations were, in
general, ranked higher than the FTD translations. The agreement
was almost unanimous that the worst translation of all was the
FTD unedited rough-draft human translation.
We requested that the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and
Technical Information provide us with the six most recently ac-
quired Russian-to-English translations from JPRS and FTD. When
these arrived, we eliminated three translations—two because of
length and one because we wanted to include an unedited rough-
draft translation in the sample. The ten translations that formed
the sample were keyed as follows:
(A) Absorption of Radio Waves by Air Behind a Shock Wave, FTD
AD605883, FTD-MT- 63- 74, by T. V. Bazhenova and Yu. S .
Lobastov 9/62
(B) Translations on Soviet Construction and Building Materials
Industry No. 65, USSR (Large-Scale Building Activity in
Process Throughout the Soviet Union) JPRS: 27,2 67, TT:
64- 51522 1 1/6/64
(C) USSR Industrial Development, Soviet Chemical Industry, No.
188 JPRS: 27,271, TT: 64-51526 11/6/64
(D) Research on Heat Exchange in Vacuum by A. N. Devoyno,
FTD-MT- 63-09 Edited Machine Translation, 20 Feb. 1964
(E) Testing and Ozokerite Bacillus Culture Liquid for Toxicity by
Ch. B. Bayriyev- USSR- JPRS: 27,268, TT: 64-51523 11/6/64
(~) There is Such a Machine by Ye. Temchin, FTD-TT-64-1170/1
27 Oct. 1964
102
OCR for page 103
(H)
(I)
(J)
Method of Detection and Identification of Remote Explosions
by V. S. Voyutskiy, FTD-MT-64-407, Edited Machine Trans-
lation, 6 Oct. 1964
Prevention of Brucellosis by I. N. Ivashurova - USSR
JPRS: 27, 269 TT: 64-51524 1176/64
Investigation of Optical Oscillator on Ruby at Liquid Nitro-
gen Temperature by V. K. Konyukhov, L. A. Kulevskiy, and
A. M. Prokhorov, FTD-MT-63-100, 21 Oct. 1963
Translations on Soviet Agriculture No. 44, JPRS: 27,272,
TT: 64- 51527 6 November 1964
The translations were then stripped of any identifying markers
and photoreproduced.
The samples were then sent to the science editors at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and to the
owner of a commercial translation agency who did not read
Russian but was experienced in the editing of translations . These
editors were given the following instructions:
What is needed is a rank-ordering of the enclosed materials with the
best document being given the number "it, and the worst document number
"10. " The basis for judgement would be the standards which you as a
scientific editor normally apply. What we are after is your rating of
excellence or lack of excellence of the writing in these documents. In
other words, how does the stuff read?
In addition to your rank-ordering of these items (which thus shows
their standing relative to each other)? we would welcome your comments
as to how they impress you on an absolute scale. That is, although
number "1" will be the best of the total group, it still may be an example
of poor scientific writing
TABLE 7. Ranking of FTD (letters in parentheses) and JPRS Translations
Best ~
Editor Number
1 (Commercial
firm)
2
4
5
6
l
H (G)
_ 4 5
(D) C (I)
C H J (G)
E H C (G)
E H C
(G)
J
C H
H E
E (G)
Rating ~ Worst
_ 7 8 9 10_
E (A) B
E
(D)
J (G)
E (A)
(G) B
(D) C
(I) (D)
B (A)
(A)
(D) (I)
J (D)
B (A)
(F) J
B (A)
(I)
(I) (D)
J
(F)
(F)
(F)
(F)
(I) (A) (F)
(0 (J) (F)
103
OCR for page 104
Results of the editors' ranking are given in Table 7. In order to
obtain a numerical rating of the translations, those appearing in
column 1 were given a score of 100; each column was scored 10
points lower so that those in column 10 were given a rating of 10.
On this basis the numerical scores of the translations are as
follows:
Translation
H 640
C 580
E
G
D
B
A
F
Score Translating Agency
550
530
360
310
270
270
260
80
JPRS
JPRS
JPRS
FTD
FTD
JPRS
FTD
JPRS
FTD
FTD
If both FTD and JPRS had had equal numbers of translations on
either side of the median (55), their scores would each have been
1,925 (half of the total 3,850 points possible). Actually the JPRS
translations scored 2,350 points and the FTD translations scored
1,500 points.
Concerning the absolute merit of these translations, some com-
ments of editors might be informative:
Number 4. "I consider this (E-JPRS) a paper of average merit,
which, from the standpoint of style and clarity, would be accept-
able for publication in a technical scientific journal."
Number 4. "tWhat is it all about ?' says paper F. What indeed!
This one is hopeless."
Number 3. "(E and H) could be published as is or with very little
rephrasing. "
Number 2. "As scientific writing, C is acceptable, H,J,G, and
E are fair and could be fixed up with a little editing. The rest
go from poor to very poor."
Although the sample was too small to allow one to generalize
with a great deal of confidence, the consensus of the editors con-
cerning the relative worth (or worthlessness) of some of the
translations (e.g., H and F) tends to increase one's confidence
104
OCR for page 105
in the findings of this study; i.e., the JPRS translations are some-
what better than the postedited machine translation, arid the un-
edited rough-draft human translation is the worst of all.
This conclusion, when coupled with the report from the Govern-
ment Printing Office (Exhibit 1) concerning the graphic arts
quality of these samples, would tend to indicate that JPRS trans-
lations are superior to FTD translations.
Statistical reliability figures based on these ratings have been
computed by Professor J. B. Carroll. They are as follows:
Kendall's W., a coefficient of concordance, based on the JPRS-
FTD comparison ratings, is 0.724, well beyond the 0.001 level,
but not as high as 1.00, the figure indicating perfect reliability.
The application of the Mann-Whitney U-test to the summed
ratings gives a value of U=4.5. For the case where 5 values are
being compared with 5 values, this is significant only with a
probability between 0.096 and 0.15. This is not sufficiently signi-
ficant to reject with any confidence the null hypothesis that the
two sets of translation are drawn from the same population.
The summed ranks on which the Mann-Whitney test was based
are as follows:
JPRS
H 13
C 19
E 22
B 46
50
FTD
(G) 24
(D) 41
(I) 50
(A) 51
(F) 69
105
OCR for page 106
EXHIBIT 1.
Dr. A. Hood Roberts, Executive Secretary
National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20418
Dear Dr. Roberts:
March 24, 1965
In answer to your request for an evaluation of the quality of the
printing of the translated material which you left with me, we have
arrived at the following breakdown:
1. F
2. B,C,H,J
3. G,E,D,A,I
Rating
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
Group 1: This is adequate perhaps only because it is double spaced
and seems to be blacker than the rest of the submissions.
Group 2: The printing of these is very poor, although not so bad but
what the text can be read. The difficulty here seems to be that there
has been no attempt to maintain good ink coverage, or good quality
camera work and platemaking. The presswork is particularly bad
where smudges are permitted to appear across the printing.
Group 3: This group contains lithe illustrations. Most of them are
evidently too many times removed from the original, or they were
made from duplicator copies (Xerox, Ozalid, etc.) which always lose
much of the detail. If the original copy had been used as camera
copy, I am sure much better results could have been obtained. If the
original copy was used, then the results are simply bad handling or
inexperienced personnel. There seems to be little reason for repro-
ductions as poor as this last group.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES L. HARRISON
Public Printer
By: Frank H. Mortimer
Typography and Design Manager
United States Government
Printing Office
106
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ftd ftd ftd
