L’analyse ergonomique du travail et de la formation : quelques contributions récentes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce numéro spécial est dédié aux travaux récents des membres du groupe Ergonomics analysis of work and training (EAWT) qui se réunit périodiquement, depuis 1991, dans le cadre du Congrès de l’Association internationale d’ergonomie (IEA). Les six contributions présentées ici découlent du dernier congrès tenu à Recife en 2012 et des collaborations subséquentes entre des chercheurs de plusieurs pays. Vous pourrez découvrir les particularités de l’approche ergonomique des questions de formation ainsi que la diversité de ses apports. Ces travaux offrent l’occasion de réfléchir aux conceptions de la formation et à leurs liens avec l’activité de travail et avec les conditions de travail et d’apprentissage. Ils permettent aussi de prendre connaissance des cadres conceptuels et méthodologiques variés qui alimentent aujourd’hui ce domaine de recherche.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".