"Travailler, c'est trop dur"? : la santé mentale et le rétablissement, quand le travail s'en mêle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectif : Selon neuf Québécois francophones âgés de 26 à 55 ans ayant un trouble mental, comment le travail compétitif est lié au rétablissement. Méthodologie : Étude qualitative descriptive. Entrevues individuelles semi structurées portant sur le travail, le rétablissement, la perception du Soi, le trouble mental, la conciliation travail-trouble mental, le soutien formel et informel reçu. Traduction maison du Recovery Assessment Scale de Giffort, Schmook, Woody, Vollendorf et Gervain (1995) pour situer les participants par rapport à leur processus de rétablissement. Analyse de contenu menant à quatre modèles-types répondant sommairement à la question de recherche. Résultats : Le rétablissement est une guérison (vision stricte), le rétablissement est possible malgré les symptômes et les risques de rechute (vision modérée). Le travail aide ou nuit au rétablissement (vision arrêtée), la contribution du travail au rétablissement dépend du contexte (vision contextuelle). Deux facteurs modulent le lien travail-rétablissement : le stress professionnel et l'équilibre des domaines de vie.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".