L’ergonomie du genre : quelles influences sur l’intervention et la formation ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce numéro spécial vise à rendre compte des recherches et discussions scientifiques sur l'ergonomie et genre.Regarder l'activité avec un point de vue sur le sexe/genre change notre façon de comprendre les liens entre travail et santé et nos pratiques de l'intervention en milieu professionnel.Ce numéro spécial est issu de questions posées par le groupe Genre Activités et Santé (GAS) -la section européenne et la section québécoise du Comité Technique Gender and Work de l'Association Internationale d'Ergonomie (IEA).Ces groupes multidisciplinaires réunissent des chercheur.e.s et des praticien.ne.s.Plus exactement, il s'agit de reprendre les réflexions et les questions posées lors du symposium sur Ergonomie et Genre qui a eu lieu en septembre 2013 au congrès de la Société d'Ergonomie de Langue Française ainsi que lors du symposium sur Genre/sexe dans les interventions en ergonomie et dans la formation au congrès de l'Association Canadienne d'Ergonomie à Montréal en octobre 2014.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".