La gestion des savoir-faire de métier chez les pompiers volontaires du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente des résultats et une réflexion préliminaire concernant la dynamique de la gestiondes connaissances du métier de pompier volontaire. Ces travailleurs ont peu de moments communs, dansle cadre de leur travail, pour acquérir et échanger des connaissances, tout en évoluant dans un métier où leserreurs sont lourdes de conséquences. De fait, afin de se protéger des risques autant physiques que psychologiques,ces travailleurs doivent maîtriser plusieurs connaissances techniques et expérientielles. Comment parviennent-ils à élaborer et à transmettre les savoir-faire de métier nécessaires? C’est au moyen d’entrevues degroupes non directives et d’une analyse herméneutique du discours des pompiers volontaires que cette étudeexpose certaines limites relatives à la gestion des connaissances dans ce milieu. Le présent article fait état deconstats préliminaires entourant la gestion des connaissances dans ce milieu pour ensuite proposer quelquespistes d’amélioration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".