MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940868718 · doi:10.4000/travailemploi.8707

L’extension du travail dominical dans le commerce

2018· article· fr· W2940868718 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTravail et emploi · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S’appuyant sur les nombreuses négociations autour du travail dominical dans le secteur du commerce, cet article a pour objectif d’observer comment les logiques de qualification des salariés s’y renouvellent. La qualification est le produit d’un rapport de forces qui s’actualise constamment au cours des conflits et des négociations au sein des entreprises. Or le travail dominical est une exigence grandissante de la part des employeurs dans le commerce : il devient un enjeu de négociations et de luttes dans un secteur où la qualification des emplois est rarement reconnue. Les accords conclus en 2016 dans les entreprises sur le travail dominical instaurent non seulement un statut d’emploi d’appoint pour les travailleurs du week-end mais participent aussi à la redéfinition de la qualification de l’ensemble des employés du commerce. En reposant sur une individualisation accrue des pratiques temporelles et de la rémunération, le recours croissant au travail dominical fragilise le collectif de travail et renforce les inégalités entre les salariés.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.008

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.320 · 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