Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lors des interventions incendie, les pompiers revêtent divers équipements de protection contre la chaleur et la toxicité des fumées, dont l’appareil de protection respiratoire isolant autonome (APRIA). Premièrement, une analyse de la littérature scientifique et des documents législatifs et réglementaires canadiens et québécois nous permettra de décrire les discours collectifs sur les relations entre la toxicité des fumées et certaines maladies professionnelles, dont les cancers, ainsi que le rôle de ces discours dans l’acceptation et la généralisation du port de l’APRIA. Deuxièmement, nous utiliserons à la fois une analyse des documents de formation en sécurité incendie, des enquêtes de décès en fonction par détresse respiratoire et des données ethnographiques recueillies auprès des pompiers du Québec pour montrer que l’APRIA transforme les opérations incendie puisque le temps et l’espace doivent y être conçus en réserve d’air et les pompiers doivent y respirer collectivement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".