MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990009058

Combien coûte une lésion professionnelle?

2015· article· fr· W6990009058 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWestern europeTrade unionTown planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les lésions professionnelles sont coûteuses à plus d’un titre. Elles sont coûteuses pour les entreprises, mais aussi pour l’ensemble de la société. Les montants versés par la CSST — les débours — ne représentent qu’une partie des coûts totaux engendrés par les lésions professionnelles. Pour obtenir un portrait global de la situation, il faut estimer tout l’ensemble des coûts financiers et humains qui sont assumés par les travailleurs, les employeurs et la collectivité. Combien coûte un accident lié au travail? Combien coûte une maladie professionnelle ? Cette fiche contient les réponses. Pour en savoir plus : consulter le site Web statistiques.irsst.qc.ca

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.009

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207