Intervenir contre le harcèlement au travail : soigner et sévir ne suffisent pas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quelles sont les voies d’intervention privilégiées et à promouvoir en matière de lutte contre le harcèlement psychologique au travail ? La tendance actuelle des entreprises est de se doter de politiques et de prévoir le recours à des services de médiation ou à des procédures d’enquête. L’article analyse d’abord les avantages et les limites de ces formes d’intervention à saveur fortement psychologique ou juridique. La mise au jour des éléments organisationnels en présence dans plusieurs situations de harcèlement permet ensuite de comprendre qu’une lutte efficace contre le harcèlement ne peut se réduire à des interventions individuelles faites en marge des lieux concrets du travail. Les interventions à promouvoir doivent contribuer à retisser les liens de solidarité fragilisés par des formes d’organisation du travail et de gestion qui placent les personnes en situation constante d’insécurité, de surcharge et de compétition. Elles doivent permettre la parole et l’action collectives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".