From Serious Shortage of Researchers to OHS Law Changes and Growing Industrial Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientists having raised concerns about technological advancements and the associated risks, the Quebec scientific community implemented the work safety component within the Quebec Occupational Health and Safety Research Network (QOHSRN). This initially fostered a first geographical connection among scientists, thus facilitating knowledge exchange and transfer. With various research themes, the first component members made an initial observation of the critical situation in regard to occupational safety in the industrial sector. Yet, occupational safety is a shared concern affecting all industrial sectors, environments and countries. The strategic occupational safety component expanded its efforts toward internationalization to increase the visibility of its activities. The creation of components within other global networks and a journal were the first steps marking this desire for international sharing. With the number of environments affected by occupational health and safety (OHS), research activities in this field involve an interinstitutional and interdisciplinary research community. The QOHSRN’s strategic occupational safety component leads by example by involving researchers from all fields of study and various Quebec universities and research institutions. Research themes within the component are all equally diverse and complementary. They range from the study of occupational safety integration methods at the design stage to technical, organizational, normative, legislative and preventive methods, and the development of new protection devices and equipment. A portrait of the make-up of the QOHSRN’s strategic occupational safety component and its evolution from its creation to the QOHSRN’s 10th anniversary was also produced and analyzed to show its growing evolution.
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 | 0.108 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.008 |
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".