Women and men nursing assistants : collaboration in heavy physical tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Jusqu’a il y a peu, les postes d’aide-soignant(e)s dans les hopitaux quebecois etaient affectes selon des criteres de sexe. Suite a des pressions feministes, les postes masculins et feminins sont maintenant indifferencies. Les preposes et les preposees a ces postes se sont ensuite plaints que les femmes n’etaient plus capables de « faire leur part ». En collaboration avec les comites paritaires de sante au travail, nous avons observe pendant 63 heures comment se faisait le partage des tâches physiquement exigeantes. Contrairement a toute attente, les femmes effectuaient un bien plus grand nombre d’operations a l’heure que les hommes et executaient seules un nombre egal d’operations tres exigeantes. Les infirmieres sollicitaient nettement plus souvent l’aide des aides-soignantes que celle des aides-soignants. Dans cet article, a partir de discussions sur les resultats de l’enquete avec les salaries et salariees, nous cherchons a expliquer l’ecart entre leurs representations et nos observations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".