Le « Right to request flexible working » : un outil favorable aux employés proches aidants ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Canada, une consultation nationale a évoqué la pertinence d'instaurer un nouveau droit : les travailleurs pourraient demander à leur employeur un aménagement flexible de leur temps ou de leur lieu de travail, à l'image du « RTR flexible working » anglo-saxon. Notre article s'intéresse à l'effet de ce droit dans trois pays du Commonwealth où il a été instauré au cours des années 2000. Nous analysons sa pertinence en tant qu'instrument de politiques publiques visant un changement d'attitude managérial face aux accommodements que souhaiteraient des employés ayant des responsabilités familiales complexes, comme les proches aidants. Notre revue de la littérature montre que le RTR a eu un effet mitigé dans les milieux de travail, mais qu'il amène certains employeurs à offrir plus de mesures de flexibilité à leurs employés.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".