Reglamento sustitutivo de operaciones hidrocarburíferas del Ecuador

5.1.4.1.1 MT Instructions

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects of the factors Language and PE_LEVEL on total task time for the MT instructions.

LANGUAGE: The factor Language was found not to have a statistically significant effect on total task time (F (2, 57) = .47, p>.10). This means that when the factor Language is considered without distinctions between PE_LEVELs, there is no statistically significant difference across the three translated languages DE (M=1170.09, SE =93.96), ZH (M=1193.96, SE =76.02) and JP (M=1100.31, SE =65.93) for task time.

PE_LEVEL: The factor PE_LEVEL was found to have a statistically significant effect on task time, where F (1, 57) = 3.47, p<.10. This indicates that when the

123

factor PE_LEVEL is considered without distinctions between languages, there is a statistically significant difference across the two post-editing levels PEz (M=1240.33, SE=62.76) and PEp (M=1069, SE=66.96).

INTERACTION: The interaction Language*PE_LEVEL was found not to have a statistically significant effect on task time (F (2, 57) = 2.33, p>.10). This means that the factor Language (no distinctions between PE_LEVELs) combined with the factor PE_LEVEL (no distinction between Languages) do not have a joint effect on total task time.

Table 5:10 shows the mean and standard deviation for each language and their respective post-editing levels (in seconds), and Figure 5:5 illustrates the estimated marginal means for each post-editing level.

Groups Mean Std. Deviation

DE PEz 1225.99 217.55 PEp 1114.19 307.59 ZH PEz 1402.12 366.75 PEp 985.81 380.89 JP PEz 1092.91 379.59 PEp 1107.72 350.30

Table 5:10 - Mean and Standard Deviation for Total Task Time (secs) – Translated Content

124

When looking at task time (Figure 5:5) across PE_LEVELs, the ZH_PEp group presents lower times when compared to the DE_PEp and JP_PEp groups, however, there were no statistically significant differences for the PE_LEVEL PEp across the translated languages. This means that participants from all the PEp groups (DE_PEp, ZH_PEp and JP_PEp) were similarly fast when performing the tasks. Regarding the PE_LEVEL PEz, the ZH_PEz presents higher times when compared to the DE_PEz and JP_PEz. This result was a statistically significant only for the ZH_PEz against the JP_PEz group at the p<.05 level, which means that the JP_PEz participants were statistically faster when compared against the ZH_PEz group. No statistically significant differences were found between the German and the Japanese PEz groups (p>.10) or German and Chinese PEz groups (p>.10). These results indicate that participants from the DE_PEz group were as fast as JP_PEz and ZH_PEz groups.

Regarding PE_LEVEL within languages, a pairwise comparison found that the Simplified Chinese language presented a statistically significant difference ZH_PEp and ZH_PEz groups, where p<.05. This result indicates that for the Simplified Chinese language, participants who used the raw machine translated instructions (ZH_PEz) were significantly slower than the participants who used the lightly post- edited instructions (ZH_PEp). For the German and Japanese languages, however, no statistically significant difference was found within the PE_LEVELS (DE_PEp and DE_PEz; JP_PEz and JP_PEp), where p>.10, even when the PEp group of the Japanese language shows slightly higher task time than the PEz group. The results for German and Japanese indicate that participants who used the PEz instructions were as fast as the participants who used the PEp instructions.

Overall, we can conclude that participants who used the PEz instructions were slower at performing the tasks when compared to participants who used the PEp instructions for the ZH language. For German and Japanese, the time taken by participants to perform the tasks from both groups was comparative.

Comparison with Source

The performance of the participants who used the English source of the MT Instructions was also computed for task time. A pairwise comparison found that the

125

participants who used the EN instructions were statistically faster at completing tasks when compared to the translated languages (including both PE_LEVELs): DE (M=1170.09, SE=89.41) at the p<.05 level; ZH (M=1193.96, SE=72.34) at the p<.005 level; and JP (M=1100.31, SE=62.78) at the p<.05. There was also a very statistically significant difference between the English source and the PE_LEVEL PEz (M=1240.33, SE=59.72) at the p<.001 level, and the PE_LEVEL PEp (M= 1069, SE=63.72) at the p<0.1 level.

Table 5:11 shows the mean and standard deviation for each language and their respective post-editing levels (in seconds) compared to the English source, while Figure 5:6 illustrates the estimated marginal means for each post-editing level compared to the Source.

Groups Mean Std. Deviation

EN SOURCE 780.19 128.31 DE PEz 1225.99 217.55 PEp 1114.19 307.59 ZH PEz 1402.12 366.75 PEp 985.81 380.89 JP PEz 1092.91 379.59 PEp 1107.72 350.30

Table 5:11 - Mean and Standard Deviation for Task Time (secs) – Source

126

Tukey post-hoc results show that participants who used the English source instructions were statistically faster when compared to the participants from the ZH_PEz group (p<.005). No statistically significant difference was found between the EN_SOURCE groups and the other groups (DE_PEz, DE_PEp, ZH_PEp, JP_PEz, and JP_PEp).

5.1.4.1.2 HT Instructions

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects of Language and PE_LEVEL on task time for the human translated tasks. Note that this data only involves HT instructions – results for the MT instruction were presented in the previous section (5.1.3.1.1).

LANGUAGE: The factor Language was found not to have a statistically significant effect on total task time for the HT instructions (F (2, 57) = 1.70, p>.10). This means that when the factor Language is considered without distinctions between PE_LEVELs, there is no statistically significant difference across the three translated languages DE (M=188.28, SE =19.09), ZH (M=203.41, SE =15.44) and JP (M=166.16, SE =13.39) for task time.

PE_LEVEL: The factor PE_LEVEL was found not to have a statistically significant effect on task time for the HT instructions (F (1, 57) = .06, p>.10) for the human translated tasks. This means that when the factor PE_LEVEL is considered without distinctions between languages, there are no statistically significant differences across the two post-editing levels PEz (M=188.38, SE=12.75) and PEp (M=183.53, SE=13.06).

INTERACTION: The interaction Language*PE_LEVEL was found not to have a statistically significant effect on task time (F (2, 57) =.12, p>.10). This means that the factor Language (no distinction between PE_LEVELs) combined with the factor PE_LEVEL (no distinction between languages) do not have a joint effect on total task time.

Table 5:12 shows the mean and standard deviation for each language and their respective post-editing levels (in seconds), while Figure 5:7 illustrates the estimated marginal means for each post-editing level.

127

Groups Mean Std. Deviation

DE PEz 194.75 35.57 PEp 181.81 78.46 ZH PEz 199.33 64.33 PEp 207.51 48.56 JP PEz 171.06 78.38 PEp 161.27 88.22

Table 5:12- Mean and Standard Deviation for Task Time (secs) - HT instructions – Translated Content

A pairwise comparison indicated that there was a moderate statistical difference between the languages JP (M=166.16, SE =13.39) and ZH (M=203.41, SE =15.44) at the p<.10 level. Tukey post-hoc results show that there were no statistically significant differences between JP_PEz and ZH_PEz groups; or JP_PEp and ZH_PEp.

Overall, there were no statistically significant differences among any of the groups, which indicate that participants from both PEz and PEp groups from all translated languages were comparatively fast at performing the tasks with HT instructions.

128

Figure 5:8 - Task Time HT Instructions – Source (secs)

Comparison with Source

The performance of the participants who used the English source of the HT Instructions was also computed for task time. Table 5:13 shows the mean and standard deviation for each language and their respective post-editing levels (in seconds) compared to the English source, while Figure 5:8 illustrates the estimated marginal means for each post-editing level compared to the Source.

Groups Mean Std. Deviation

EN SOURCE 130.38 37.59 DE PEz 194.75 35.57 PEp 181.81 78.46 ZH PEz 199.33 64.33 PEp 207.51 48.56 JP PEz 171.06 78.38 PEp 161.27 88.22

Table 5:13 – Mean and Standard Deviation for Task Time (secs) - (HT Instructions - Source

Regarding languages (no distinctions between PE-LEVELs), participants who used the English instructions were statistically faster when compared to the ones who used the ZH instructions (M=203.41, SE=14.82) at the p<.05 level and moderately faster when compared to the participants who used the DE (M= 188.28, SE=18.32) instructions at the p<.10 level. Regarding PE_LEVEL, there was a statistically significant difference for the English source when compared to the post- editing level PEz (M=188.38, SE=12.24) where p<.10.

129

Tukey post-hoc results show that there was no statistical difference between the EN_SOURCE and the other groups DE_PEz, DE_PEp, ZH_PEz, ZH_PEp, JP_PEz and JP_PEp. This indicates that the difference in task time for the participants who used the source of the HT instructions and participants who saw the HT instructions embedded in the PEp and PEz instructions (for DE, ZH and JP) was not statistically significant.