MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1698238501 · doi:10.4000/pistes.2441

Troubles musculo-squelettiques chez les téléopérateurs des centres d’urgence 911, des contraintes physiques aux contraintes psychosociales

2009· article· fr· W1698238501 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Georges Toulouse, Louise St-Arnaud, Renée Bourbonnais, Alain Delisle, Denise Chicoine

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePsychosocialPsychologyPhilosophyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À la demande de l’Association paritaire pour la santé et sécurité du travail secteur « affaires municipales » du Québec (APSAM), une programmation de recherche thématique a été élaborée dans le but d’intervenir pour réduire la prévalence des troubles musculo-squelettiques et de santé psychologique affectant les téléopérateurs des centres d’urgence 911. Cet article présente une première étude dont l’objectif est de décrire la prévalence et d’identifier les problématiques sous-jacentes à la présence de troubles musculo-squelettiques. La méthodologie adoptée comporte l’administration de questionnaires, la réalisation d’observations et d’entrevues ouvertes dans cinq centres d’urgence 911. Les résultats montrent des taux de prévalence de troubles musculo-squelettiques beaucoup plus élevés que ceux d’un échantillon représentatif de travailleurs et travailleuses québécois. L’analyse des résultats statistiques à la lumière des observations et des entrevues ouvertes a permis de préciser les problématiques sous-jacentes afin de développer un projet d’intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.331 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santéSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207