Les effets conjoints du travail et des horaires alternants sur la santé des agents de surveillance des établissements pénitentiaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les préoccupations en santé publique révèlent le peu Notre étude vise à comparer les effets sur la santé de trois formes d’organisation temporelle (horaires traditionnels, factions de 6 heures et de 12 heures) au sein d’établissements pénitentiaires français, et plus particulièrement auprès des personnels de surveillance. Des moyens d’investigation complémentaires (questionnaire, observations du travail, traitement statistique) ont été mis en œuvre pour tenter de faire la part entre le poids des horaires et le poids du travail sur l’état de santé des agents. Si les personnels en factions de 12 heures présentent des résultats meilleurs que les personnels en 6 heures, c’est en particulier dû à des avantages dans la vie extra-professionnelle, bien que des signes certains de fatigue ne permettent pas de conclure significativement en faveur de telles modalités. Au-delà de l’alternance des horaires, le contenu du travail pèse de manière importante sur la santé des agents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".