MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388856488 · doi:10.46990/iquatro.2023.11.1.6

Capítulo 6. El trabajo decente desde la perspectiva de directores y directoras en las micro y pequeñas empresas de San Francisco de los Romo, Aguascalientes, México.

2023· book-chapter· es· W4388856488 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Verónica Muñoz Esparza, Francisco Javier Torres Rojas, María Cecilia Moreno Nungaray, María Guadalupe Rodríguez Palomino

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ResumenLa agenda 2030 de la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas (AGNU) propone el logro de condiciones de trabajo decente de todo trabajador en el mundo.El objetivo de esta investigación es caracterizar el trabajo decente (TD) desde la perspectiva de los directivos de las micro y pequeñas empresas en San Francisco de los Romo, Aguascalientes, México.La hipótesis es que existen diferencias significativas en la percepción del TD dependiendo del giro de la empresa y del nivel educativo del directivo.Se llevó a cabo un estudio cuantitativo con una muestra de 310 directivos, a quienes se les aplicó la escala de trabajo decente para empresarios (TDE).Los resultados indican que los directivos tienen una percepción regular del TD sin diferencias significativas por giro o nivel educativo, lo que sugiere la homogeneidad en la percepción de los sujetos y la necesidad de estrategias generales para mejorar la percepción de los sujetos respecto de cada dimensión.Las dimensiones abordadas en el estudio son las siguientes: Oportunidad de empleo, Estabilidad y seguridad, Ingresos adecuados, Horas de trabajo decente, Conciliación del trabajo con la vida familiar, igualdad de oportunidades, entorno del trabajo seguro, promoción del diálogo social y seguro social.Particularmente la dimensión de seguridad social ofrecida a los trabajadores, que se detalla en cinco rubros, (seguridad social, pensión, bonos, utilidades y vacaciones pagadas) y más del 50% de los directivos manifiesta no proporcionarlas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.003

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.362 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesFrench-language works237,207