Le droit quebecois et les troubles musculo-squelettiques : regles relatives a l'indemnisation et a la prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La premiere loi quebecoise relative a l’indemnisation des accidentes du travail remonte a 1909, mais ce n’est qu’en 1931 que le legislateur quebecois a introduit le concept de maladie professionnelle et, a cette epoque, on ne faisait pas mention des troubles musculo-squelettiques (TMS) dans les maladies listees en annexe a la loi (Lippel, 1986). Ce n’est qu’en 1963 que la loi fait sa premiere mention des TMS, en integrant la bursite et la tenosynovite dans les maladies mentionnees en annexe a la loi.[1] En droit quebecois, il est difficile d’etudier l’evolution de la reconnaissance des TMS pour la periode anterieure a 1977, date de l’introduction du droit d’appel aupres d’un tribunal administratif externe, en raison de la confidentialite de l’information relative aux dossiers individuels et du caractere laconique des balises juridiques explicites. On constate, par contre, que le nombre de « maladies musculo-squellettiques » reconnues a titre de maladies professionnelles etait relativement bas, compare a celui des autres maladies professionnelles, soit 334 cas parmi 1276 pour l’annee 1977 (Marois, 1978, Tableaux 7 et 12).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".