MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215963365

Women and men nursing assistants : collaboration in heavy physical tasks

2002· article· en· W3215963365 on OpenAlex
Karen Messing, Diane Elabidi

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers du Genre · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.367 · 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