Establishing the Viability of the Multidimensional Quality Metrics Framework
2015
- 2,603Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage2,603
- Downloads2,279
- 2,279
- Abstract Views324
Thesis / Dissertation Description
The Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework is a new system for creating customized translation quality assessment and evaluation metrics designed to fit specific translation needs. In this study I test the viability of MQM to determine whether the framework in its current state is ready for implementation as a quality assessment framework in the translation industry. Other contributions from this study include: (1) online software for designing and using metrics based on the MQM framework; (2) a survey of the typical, real-world quality assessment and evaluation practices of language service providers in the translation industry; and (3) a measurement scale for determining the viability of translation quality assessment and evaluation frameworks such as MQM. The study demonstrates that the MQM framework is a viable solution when it comes to the validity and practicality of creating translation quality metrics for the translation industry. It is not clear whether those metrics can be used reliably without extensive training of qualified assessors on the use of MQM metrics.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know