MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587471320 · doi:10.7202/1033862ar

L’affectif : dimension occultée des rapports de travail

2015· article· fr· W2587471320 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marie-Claire Carpentier-Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCollège de Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si les dimensions économiques et politiques des rapports de travail ont été largement étudiées par la sociologie, les aspects relatifs à l’investissement affectif des individus ont été, pour leur part, oubliés, voire occultés. Dans le champ du travail et de la santé, la sociologie est de plus en plus confrontée aux problèmes de santé mentale au travail, et alors elle est forcément questionnée par cet « oubli » des dimensions affectives qui sont à l’oeuvre dans toute activité de travail, dimensions historiquement laissées à la psychologie du travail. La psychopathologie du travail (courant multidisciplinaire intégrant sociologie et psychanalyse) propose une analyse du rapport psychique de l’homme au travail qui questionne l’organisation du travail en ce que celle-ci engage une mobilisation psychique projective ou défensive du travailleur pour conserver sa santé mentale. À partir des résultats de deux recherches menées au Québec en psychopathologie du travail, nous tenterons de dégager la fécondité heuristique d’une telle démarche.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207