MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565271617 · doi:10.7202/051051ar

Le travail humain, l'ergonomie et les relations industrielles

2005· article· fr· W1565271617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fernande Lamonde, Sylvie Montreuil

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avec ce numéro thématique, la revue Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations publie pour la première fois des articles en ergonomie. De ce fait, le présent article vise deux objectifs: définir l'objet d'étude, l'objectif et la méthodologie d'intervention propres à l'ergonomie et mettre en lumière les points de rencontre et les perspectives de collaboration entre relations industrielles et ergonomie. L'intérêt porté à la question de la collaboration entre ces deux disciplines est expliqué, entre autres, par une «coïncidence historique ». Du cóté de l'ergonomie, la popularité des volets « organisation du travail » et « gestion sociale de l'intervention ergonomique » succéderait à une période où les énergies ont été concentrées sur le développement de modalités concrètes de travail en commun avec les disciplines techniques comme l'ingénierie, l'informatique et l'architecture. Parallèlement à cela, du cóté des relations industrielles s'est développé un intérêt de plus en plus marqué pour les problèmes pratiques de gestion posés par les micromécanismes organisationnels que représente, dans l'entreprise, l'activité réelle et informelle des opérateurs. Trois formes concrètes de collaboration à faire naître entre ergonomes et spécialistes en relations industrielles sont proposées.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207