MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246950680 · doi:10.4000/laboreal.549

O regresso ao trabalho após um acidente de trabalho : apresentação do dossier

2018· article· pt· W4246950680 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboreal · 2018
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Um processo complexo e multifacetado Partindo do principio que ‘regressar ao trabalho após um acidente de trabalho’ se traduz na reintegração profissional do sinistrado em funções compatíveis com as limitações resultantes do desastre, várias questões levantam-se ainda sobre o modo como o empregador assegura tal regresso. A legislação portuguesa desta matéria é, hoje, clara sobre esses aspetos. Nem sempre o foi. E para lá chegar o caminho se revelou, às vezes, sinuoso e tenso. Felizmente culmi...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.398 · 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