MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124255654 · doi:10.7202/006905ar

La place des femmes dans les priorités de recherche en santé au travail au Québec

2003· article· fr· W2124255654 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karen Messing

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous avons analysé le rapport annuel produit en 1999 par l’Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail du Québec et nous avons constaté que, dans les professions et secteurs concernés par les études financées, le pourcentage moyen de femmes est de 15 % (comparé à 45 % de femmes parmi la population au travail). Douze populations étudiées sont équilibrées ou composées en majorité de femmes, et 76 sont composées d’hommes à plus de deux tiers. Le montant moyen accordé aux études sur une population équilibrée ou majoritairement composée de femmes était de 86 339 $ comparativement à 114 480 $ pour les autres. Nous considérons plusieurs hypothèses d’explication de ces différences. Nous concluons que, peu importe la cause, un effort soutenu de recherche ciblée vers les emplois des femmes est essentiel, en plus d’une analyse différenciée en santé 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207