L’intervention ergonomique participative pour prévenir les TMS : ce qu’en dit la littérature francophone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette activité consistait à faire la synthèse de la littérature francophone sur le déroulement des interventions d'ergonomie participative visant la prévention des troubles musculo-squelettiques et sur leurs conditions de succès ou d'échec. Complémentant une analyse de la littérature anglophone réalisée en collaboration avec l'Institute for Work and Health, de l'Ontario, elle fournit un portrait complet des caractéristiques de ces interventions. Elle permettra, en outre, de faire connaître les recherches des ergonomes francophones sur une tribune internationale. L’étude analyse l’intervention ergonomique participative dans toutes ses dimensions, telle que la présente la littérature scientifique francophone. Un modèle et une grille ont été mis au point pour analyser et décortiquer les documents recensés. Ils constituent des outils intéressants pour les professionnels de la spécialité; que ce soit pour l’enseignement et les études ou comme aide-mémoire de planification des interventions, de collecte d’information et de rédaction des rapports. La richesse et l’utilité de l’information tirée de l’exercice confirme la pertinence d’une analyse de la littérature francophone et encourage sa poursuite. Abstract This project involved summarizing the Francophone literature on participatory ergonomic interventions aiming to prevent musculoskeletal disorders and on their conditions for success or failure. Complementing an analysis of the Anglophone literature carried out in collaboration with the Institute for Work and Health of Ontario, it provides a complete profile of the characteristics of these interventions. Furthermore, it will publicize the research of Francophone ergonomists in an international forum. The study analyzes participatory ergonomic intervention from all perspectives, as it is presented in the Francophone scientific literature. A model and a grid were developed to analyze and deconstruct the surveyed documents. They are interesting tools for professionals in this specialty, either for teaching and for studies or as a quick reference for planning interventions, collecting information and writing reports. The richness and usefulness of the information obtained from this exercise confirms the relevance of an analysis of the Francophone literature and promotes its continuation.
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 | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".