MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964752995 · doi:10.1177/154193120004401255

Ergonomic Work Analysis, Training and Action: New Paths Opened by the Interconnection of Approaches

2000· article· en· W1964752995 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicErgonomics and Human Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Action (physics)OriginalityIdentification (biology)Training (meteorology)Theme (computing)Intervention (counseling)Citizen journalismEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementComputer scienceEngineeringPsychologySocial psychologyCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work presented since 1991 (Paris) at the Symposiums of the IEA Congresses specialized in the theme “ Ergonomic work analysis and training” has demonstrated the main development lines of the place of training in and by work analysis in the practices and theoretical problematics of ergonomists and other work professionals. There is a progressive integration of concepts, objectives and intervention fields (training of work actors, professional training) which were distinguished in the past. New paths are opening up. In a participatory approach, these new paths are being used to organize training and action in work environments as well as individual and collective development. In particular, interdisciplinarity is helping this development while enabling ergonomists to obtain a clearer identification of their originality. The risks of the failure of an action and the conditions for its success are also being more clearly defined.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.179 · 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