L’implantation d’un programme de santé et bien-être en France : intégration des meilleures pratiques canadiennes au sein d’une entreprise de services numérique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
- An approach structured around the evaluation of psychosocial risks and quality of life at work aims to question the psycho-socio-organizational environment in a global approach and based on scientific models.- In order to identify the most relevant firms to call upon in the context of a call for tenders or a specific need, several criteria to assist in the decision are to be taken into account: evaluation of firms proposed by certain specialized journals; lists drawn up by retirement and occupational health insurance funds (CARSAT); Quality of Work and Employment (QTE) expert firms and firms grouped together within the Federation of Psychosocial Risk Interveners (FIRPS).- The criteria for comparing the offers of the firms are: 1) the implementation of a multi-methodological approach, 2) the presence of a multidisciplinary team composed of at least one work psychologist or an ergonomist, qualified as a professional risk prevention worker (IPRP), 3) the existence of a participative and joint structure.- The implementation of a health and well-being program in France in an ESN was based on Canadian standards from the Quebec Bureau of Standards, following several steps: policy written by the management, creation of a health and well-being pole, definition of a service offer, definition of a measurement strategy, concrete action plan, creation of a health and well-being monitoring committee, creation of a network of ambassadors, intranet portal dedicated to health and well-being- The feedback from the implementation of the program is encouraging in terms of access to information related to occupational health, participation in activities and supra-regulatory actions for health and Work Life Quality.
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 | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".