MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936312499 · doi:10.3917/trav.041.0007

Les pratiques de recherche en psychodynamique du travail au Québec

2019· article· fr· W2936312499 on OpenAlex
Louise St-Arnaud

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTravailler · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article retrace quelques éléments de l’itinéraire de la recherche en psychodynamique du travail amorcé il y a plus de 30 ans au Québec. Le développement de ce champ de recherche et de pratique s’est organisé différemment selon qu’il était issu d’un projet de thèse, d’une intervention sur le terrain, d’un protocole de recherche ou, encore, mobilisé comme cadre théorique pour penser, analyser et comprendre le travail et ses incidences psychopathologiques. La méthodologie engageait la pleine participation des sujets de la recherche dans la compréhension du sens de leurs conduites et, par conséquent, dans leur capacité de penser leur travail et de le transformer. On ouvrait sur un type de recherche qui n’était plus dissocié de l’action et soulevait de nouveaux enjeux tant aux niveaux épistémologique que méthodologique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.011

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.338 · 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