MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031848193 · doi:10.3917/lae.052.0035

Lombalgies et réadaptation au travail

2005· article· fr· W2031848193 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Baptiste Fassier

Bibliographic record

VenueLaennec · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

Résumé À l’heure ou le gouvernement ouvre le chantier de la santé au travail, la revue Laennec a souhaité aborder le sujet des troubles musculo-squelettiques qui représentent les trois-quarts des maladies professionnelles et sont en constante augmentation. Les lombalgies, outre des conséquences néfastes pour les personnes qui en sont atteintes, ont également un retentissement économique et social. Médecin, Jean-Baptiste Fassier a étudié à l’Université de Sherbrooke, une approche innovante et pluridisciplinaire des lombalgies, intégrant le milieu du travail au processus de réadaptation.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: french · design weight: 1554.47 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: editorial/commentary
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Magazine feature on an interdisciplinary approach to low back pain and return-to-work rehabilitation; the object is clinical and occupational care.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The work concerns clinical rehabilitation approaches for low back pain.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: editorial/commentary
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Magazine piece on low-back-pain work rehabilitation; clinical occupational health, not research about research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.381 · 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
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 venueLaennecSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207