MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1664857956 · doi:10.4000/pistes.4249

L’analyse ergonomique du travail et de la formation : quelques contributions récentes

2014· paratext· fr· W1664857956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvie Beney, Dominique Cau-Bareille, Céline Chatigny, Sandrine Cortessis, Catherine Delgoulet, Denys Denis, Sérgio Duarte, Joana Fernandes, Céline Geoffroy, Maud Gonella, Marie Laberge, Élise Ledoux, Jacques Leplat, Annie Leroux, Sylvie Ouellet, Jessica Riel, Marta Santos, Claire Tourmen, Ricardo Vasconcelos, Christine Vidal-­Gomel

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé · 2014
Typeparatext
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicErgonomics and Human Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santéSame topicErgonomics and Human FactorsFrench-language works237,207