Non-PANACEA systems Sample Clauses
The Non-Panacea Systems clause clarifies that the systems, products, or services provided under the agreement are not guaranteed to solve all possible problems or meet every conceivable need of the client. In practice, this clause typically limits the provider's liability by stating that their solution is designed for specific, defined purposes and may not address issues outside its intended scope. Its core function is to manage client expectations and allocate risk by making clear that the provider is not responsible for unforeseen or unrelated problems that may arise.
Non-PANACEA systems. For the non-Panacea systems, the full test set of 1500 sentences was used. They were translated with the baseline system (the ‘Personal Translator’), and then with the adapted system, and the two outputs were compared and evaluated using the Sisyphos-II-COMP tool.
4.1.1 KFZ adapted system System KFZ-adapted vs. PT-baseline
1. The PT system lexicon is rather large (more than 200.000 translations), and already contains many automotive terms. This fact increases the baseline quality. Sentences containing such terms cannot be improved any more by the additional glossary. This fact also leads to a significant amount of synonyms (‘Hybridantrieb’ -> ‘hybrid drive’ vs. ‘hybrid propulsion’; ‘wirtschaftlich’ -> ‘cost-effective’ vs. ‘economical’; ‘robuste Konstruktion’ -> ‘robust design’ vs. ‘robust construction’). Such terms also do not lead to an improvement but to an ‘equally good/bad’ evaluation. 7 calculated by: number improvements minus number deteriorations, divided by total sentences In principle, the amount of quality improvement depends on the size and quality of the baseline lexicon.
2. Of course there are still improvements for terms where a specific term is provided for either a lexicon gap (‘Polymerschaum’ -> ‘polymer foam’) or a more general term (‘Katalysator’ -> ‘catalytic converter’ instead of ‘catalyst’; ‘gehärtete Welle’ -> ‘hardened shaft’ instead of ‘hardened wave’); such cases form the bulk of improvements. This is the behaviour which would be expected from adding a narrow-domain glossary.
3. Deteriorations mainly result from overspecifications, i.e. an automotive-specific term is used in a more general context (occurring also in automotive texts). Examples are: • ‘fehlerhaft’ -> ‘faulty’ but ‘fehlerhafte Information’ -> ‘incorrect information’ (*’faulty information’) • ‘▇▇▇▇▇’ -> ‘roller’ but ‘führende ▇▇▇▇▇’ -> ‘leading role’ (*’leading roller’) • ‘Rahmen’ -> ‘chassis’ but ‘(Polyurethan-) Rahmensysteme’ – ‘frame systems’ (*’chassis systems’) • ‘Brücke’ -> ‘jumper’ but ‘Spijkenisse Brücke’ -> ‘Spijkenisse bridge’ (*’ Spijkenisse jumper’) • ‘Leitung’ -> ‘pipe’ but ‘Leitung der Firma’ -> ‘management of the company’ (*‘pipe of company’) • ‘▇▇▇▇▇▇’ -> ‘fault’ but ‘Ingenieurmangel’ -> ’lack of engineers’ (*’engineer fault’) Such cases indicate a structural shortcoming of conventional transfer selection strategies: It is incorrect to believe • that entries of additionally loaded lexicons should always be preferred, or • that entries of a specified s...