MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984458263 · doi:10.3917/riges.374.0026

Suicide au travail : comment intervenir ?

2012· article· fr· W1984458263 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsCentrale des Syndicats du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Lorsqu’un salarié se suicide, la pensée rationnelle de l’ensemble des salariés vole en éclats, une onde de choc se propage dans l’entreprise, d’autant plus que cette personne qui s’enlève la vie part avec ses secrets. Comment l’entreprise traverse-t-elle cette crise ? Comment faut-il intervenir ? Cet article vise à aider les dirigeants et les gestionnaires à mettre en place un cadre d’intervention qui permettra de résoudre la crise. Pour cela, nous analysons les impacts d’un suicide sur l’ensemble du personnel et sur la direction de l’entreprise. Nous relevons les facteurs qui prédisposent au suicide, qui y contribuent, qui le précipitent et qui le préviennent. Puis, nous décrivons les trois modes possibles de résolution de la crise qu’entraîne un suicide : une résolution négative, neutre et positive. Par la suite, nous examinons les interventions à faire auprès des employés, des cadres et de l’organisation lorsque cette crise survient. Finalement, nous traitons des différentes mesures que la direction peut prendre pour instaurer une culture de prévention du suicide au sein du personnel.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.008

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · 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