MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1795032919 · doi:10.4000/pistes.3132

Nous, conducteurs de trains de Fernandez, Gatounes, Herbain et Vallejo

2005· article· fr· W1795032919 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François Ouellet

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Technology and Learning
Canadian institutionsCollège de Maisonneuve
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesTrainArtGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les auteurs de ce livre sont des médecins du travail et des conducteurs de trains à la SNCF qui ont voulu aller plus loin dans leur travail de réflexion sur le métier de conducteurs de train. D’une demande d’informations sur les effets des horaires de travail atypiques sur leur santé, elle s’est élargie pour aboutir à une analyse du travail de conducteurs de trains sous plusieurs aspects qui couvrent une large part de la réalité de ce travail. C’est par la parole des conducteurs eux-mêmes sur...

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santéSame topicInformation Technology and LearningFrench-language works237,207