MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058965734 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.119

Conflits de valeurs et souffrance au travail

2009· article· fr· W2058965734 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Diane Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La souffrance au travail et ses conséquences physiques et psychologiques sur les employés et les gestionnaires, ainsi que sur leur motivation et la productivité, constituent un enjeu social important qui a suscité l’intérêt des chercheurs, des professionnels et des médias au cours des dernières décennies. Cet article tente de contribuer à cette discussion en mettant en lumière les conflits de valeurs que vivent régulièrement les gestionnaires et employés dans leur travail, et la souffrance que ces conflits peuvent générer. Le recours à l’éthique appliquée, dans une perspective tant individuelle qu’organisationnelle, est présenté comme une façon d’atténuer cette forme de souffrance au travail.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207