MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045775980 · doi:10.7202/1005232ar

Instruments de mesure et voies thérapeutiques du burn-out : la responsabilité sociale court-circuitée

2011· article· fr· W2045775980 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laurie Kirouac

Bibliographic record

VenueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaire · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alors qu’il est demeuré jusqu’aux années 1980 le propre des milieux professionnels axés sur le relationnel et le soin, on considère aujourd’hui que leburn-outpeut toucher l’ensemble des travailleurs, quel que soit le contenu de leur activité productive. Comment rendre compte de l’importance du retentissement que connaît cette pathologie aujourd’hui? L’objectif du présent article est double. À partir de l’étude de trois de ces principaux instruments de mesure — modèle de Maslach et Jackson, modèle de Siegrist et modèle de Karasek —, il s’agira d’abord de mettre en lumière à quel point les facteurs psychosociaux mobilisés par ces modèles pour appréhender leburn-outet en estimer la prévalence, loin de représenter des besoins psychologiques fondamentaux, sont davantage le reflet des injonctions et contraintes qui caractérisent l’expérience du travail contemporain. De même, alors que cesfacteurs psychosociauxne sauraient être du seul ressort de l’individu, l’article cherchera à montrer que les interventions pratiquées auprès des personnes « à risque » ou « en processus » deburn-outs’en tiennent la plupart du temps au seul périmètre de la psychologie et de la responsabilité individuelles.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaireSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207