Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours de cette entrevue, Catherine Cailloux Teiger, figure de proue de l’ergonomie française, raconte comment, lors de son entrée dans au Laboratoire d’ergonomie et de physiologie du travail du CNAM, elle a découvert cette nouvelle discipline en voie d’élaboration. On apprend que dès ses premières expériences de recherche sur le terrain, sa préoccupation constante de créer et mettre au point des méthodes de cueillettes de données révélatrices de l’activité réelle de travail était déjà présente. Ce récit de décennies de travail de recherche balaie un large spectre de questions de recherche souvent inédites alors telles que le travail des femmes, l’usure au travail, le vieillissement au travail, la morbidité et mortalité différentielles entre différentes catégories d’emplois ouvriers, malgré une apparente homogénéité de statut. L’entrevue se termine par des réflexions sur les tendances actuelles qui traversent la discipline et la pratique de l’ergonomie française.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".