La mémoire de projet : véhicule d’intégration de l’ergonomie et de la SST à la conception ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour les ergonomes et les préventionnistes, faire évoluer la conduite de projet afin de pouvoir influencer efficacement la conception des situations de travail constitue un enjeu majeur. Cet article traite d’un levier d’amélioration continue des projets qu’ils pourraient exploiter avantageusement pour soutenir leurs efforts : la mémoire de projet. L’article résume d’abord ce qui est dit de cet outil dans la littérature issue des domaines de la gestion de projet et des organisations. Puis, il propose aux intervenants en ergonomie et en SST des leçons à tirer de la mémoire de projet pour soutenir leurs efforts d’intégration à la conception : infiltrer les lieux d’amélioration continue des projets ; promouvoir, voire même outiller, le recours à la mémoire de projet, même ponctuel, en particulier une mémoire centrée sur le processus (pour compléter celle, classique, centrée sur les résultats) et réalisée par tous les acteurs projet, y compris eux-mêmes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".