Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adapté par l’un des auteurs de plusieurs chapitres de l’ouvrage de référence “Noise Manual” publié par l'American Industrial Hygiene Association et utilisé aux É.-U. pour la certification des hygiénistes industriels CAOHC (Council for Accrediation in Occupational Hearing Conservation), le premier tome de cet ouvrage aborde l’ensemble des aspects propres aux protecteurs auditifs, depuis leur sélection adéquate en fonction du type d’exposition sonore jusqu’à la mesure de leur performance effective terrain, en passant par la revue de tous les inconvénients connus et de leurs possibles palliatifs. Ce tome est écrit dans une perspective nord-américaine incluant donc -en français- les plus récentes références scientifiques américaines, canadiennes et québécoises disponibles. Le Tome I de cet ouvrage trouve donc sa place entre les mains de tous les hygiénistes industriels, médecins du travail, responsables santé sécurité au travail, législateurs et preneurs de décisions, en quête de réponses simples au problème complexe du bon usage des protecteurs auditifs dans leur lutte quotidienne pour la préservation d’un des plus complexes et fragiles de nos cinq sens.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.019 |
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".