MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130150070 · doi:10.3917/resg.100.0143

Dissonance éthique : forme de souffrance par la perte de sens au travail

2014· article· fr· W2130150070 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches en Sciences de Gestion · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement Theory and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCognitive dissonancePhilosophyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partant d’un constat sur le sens du travail, nous explorons ses liens hypothétiques avec la dissonance éthique. Nous étudions ce phénomène combiné par le biais de concepts tels que l’aliénation sociale, la mauvaise foi, la cohérence et l’authenticité. Nous présentons les données issues d’une recherche exploratoire effectuée à travers des entrevues sur des dirigeants des ressources humaines au Québec. Nous découvrons qu’ils valident nos conceptions théoriques notamment sur les notions de cohérence et d’authenticité comme remède de la dissonance éthique et comme soutien du sens au travail. Ces deux notions doivent être également considérées comme interdépendantes. Nous proposons ainsi un cadre théorique afin de promouvoir d’autres recherches sur ces thèmes.

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.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.258 · 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