MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200694970 · doi:10.1177/17579759211042764

Travail de <i>care</i> des travailleuses de la santé en situation de pandémie de COVID-19 : quel engagement de la part des autorités gouvernementales?

2021· article· fr· W3200694970 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geneviève McCready, Marie-Ève Lajeunesse-Mousseau, Josée Lapalme, Sandra Harrisson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Promotion · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La COVID-19 a pressé les gouvernements à intervenir à l’aide de données partielles sur l’efficacité des moyens. Les femmes sont particulièrement touchées car elles sont plus nombreuses à s’occuper des autres. Cette étude a pour but de comprendre l’influence des décisions politiques sur les conditions de vie et de travail des travailleuses de la santé. Une analyse des interventions gouvernementales de santé publique du Québec et des revendications des travailleuses de la santé retrouvées dans les documents journalistiques et les communiqués de presse officiels du gouvernement (13 avril au 1er juillet 2020) a été effectuée. Les résultats démontrent le manque de reconnaissance des autorités face à certains types de care, ainsi qu’une inadéquation dans les moyens de prise en charge pour prendre soin de la population. Le peu de reconnaissance des conditions de vie et de travail lors de décisions politiques engendre une répartition inéquitable des fardeaux associés à la pandémie.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.425 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health PromotionSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207