Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any gap between the demands of the environment and the individual's expectations and resources places his or her health at risk. The individual's perception and evaluation determine the extent of the risk and the degree of negative or positive impact. Companies now recognize the importance of taking action to deal with workplace organization (i.e., primary prevention), in addition to offering more conventional methods of secondary and tertiary prevention. Variables associated with the intervention context, which were identified in Vezina's text, are conditions for the successful implementation of any occupational health and safety project. As representatives of a joint occupational health and safety association, we feel that we should be focusing mainly on primary prevention in the workplace. Research should be conducted to offer companies the procedures, methods, tools and means they need in order to implement effective and sustainable prevention strategies that will maintain a healthy workplace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.078 | 0.077 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".