A technology-oriented mapping of the language and translation industry: Analysing stakeholder values and their potential implication for translation pedagogy

María Isabel Rivas Ginel, Janiça Hackenbuchner, Alina Secară, Ralph Krüger, Caroline Rossi · Mar 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

This paper examines how value is constructed and negotiated in today's increasingly automated language and translation industry. Drawing on interview data from twenty-nine industry stakeholders collected within the LT-LiDER project, the study analyses how human value, technological value, efficiency, and adaptability are articulated across different professional roles. Using Chesterman's framework of translation ethics and associated values as an analytical lens, the paper shows that efficiency-oriented technological values aligned with the ethics of service have become baseline expectations in automated production environments, where speed, scalability, and deliverability dominate evaluation criteria. At the same time, human value is not displaced but repositioned, emerging primarily through expertise, oversight, accountability, and contextual judgment embedded within technology-mediated workflows. A central finding is the prominence of adaptability as a mediating value linking human and technological domains. Adaptability is constructed as a core professional requirement, reflecting expectations that translators continuously adjust their skills, roles, and identities in response to evolving tools and organisational demands. The paper argues that automation reshapes rather than replaces translation value, creating an interdependent configuration in which technological efficiency enables human communicative work.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.