MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994816686 · doi:10.4000/pistes.3310

La rotation, est-ce une SOLUTION ?

2003· article· fr· W1994816686 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicole Vézina

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotation (mathematics)MathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La rotation des postes, est-ce une solution ? Il s’agit d’une question qui se pose dans plusieurs milieux de travail et peut-être en particulier dans les entreprises où la prévention des troubles musculo-squelettiques (TMS) est devenue une préoccupation majeure. Est-ce que la rotation des postes, en apportant de la variation dans le travail, peut représenter un moyen de prévention des TMS ? Voici une des questions importantes du forum qui a été organisé les 27 et 28 février 2003 à Montréal et...

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santéSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207