Learning from experience: a theoretical framework for the work activity analysis and safe design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies were conducted in GIPC-PROSPER, a French multi-field project concerning “Integration of Prevention into Design process” (Fadier, Neboit, & Ciccotelli, 2003). One of the main objective consisted in developing a theoretical framework and methodological rules allowing the best to be taken into account into design process the conditions of use equipment work. The main result was the development of new concepts (boundary Activities Tolerated during Use and Boundary Conditions Tolerated by Use). Results showed that the analysis of the work activity could be a real tool for a better design. Thus, the return-of-experience at the end of the analysis of work activities can involve different type of designers and owners. The capacity of these analyses to anticipate future operation is significant, even if the way in which they can be integrated into the design is still lacking. However, the ultimate goal is to integrate them in the specifications that need to be satisfied.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".