23:40 Mar 28, 2011 

L'un n'empêche pas l'autre. Il doit y avoir un endroit dans le texte où l'on définit "donors" et "recipients". Si vous choisissez "donneur" et "receveur" - où des mots qui, selon vous, rendent mieux la définition -, il suffit ensuite de maintenir la cohérence et tout le monde pourra s'y retrouver.

12:47 Mar 28, 2011 

Yes they are computing websites. Two sets of data pertaining to media habits of respondents are fused to become a new set of data. One set of data is from a study of media habits in general and the other is on Internet usage. So I would be surprised that donors and recipients were actual people rather than "cells"(?) being computed ???

12:41 Mar 28, 2011 

Il s'agit de personnes, en ce cas,

donneurs-receveurs (exemple, donneur d'organe, receveur, patient (méd), bénéficiaire d'une opération.

- receveur, bénéficiaire, d'une prestation, d'un don...

donneur-receveur à l'avantage d'être un couple cohérent.

The last line of your text is for me a bit confusing, they seem to compute websites ?

10:41 Mar 28, 2011 

Within the fusion program, donors and recipients were screened on the soft control variables (household income, household with children, merged age cells), with penalty scores computed for each donor-recipient pair. The household Income variable was given the highest weight of importance in the scoring. A perfect match on all the soft control variables implies zero penalties. Iteratively the fusion program searches for the solution that delivers the lowest overall penalty for the entire cell.

The finished fused database comprises 66,860 respondent records. In order to keep the file size at a manageable level, websites with less than 100,000 unique visitors were suppressed. As a result, 8,217 unique websites are included in the final dataset.

10:34 Mar 28, 2011 

According to semantic only, donor-recipient may refer to donneur-receveur, or récipiendaire...