Analyse comparative des programmes et des procédures de cadenassage appliqués aux machines industrielles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click here for the English version of this report_x000D_ Le cadenassage réduit les risques que posent les travaux de maintenance, de réparation et de déblocage des machines industrielles. Or, la CSST indiquait récemment que 5 225 accidents, dont six mortels, surviennent encore annuellement pendant l’exécution de tels travaux sur des machines mal ou non cadenassées. La norme canadienne CSA Z460-05 définit le cadenassage comme l’installation, conformément à une procédure précise, d’un cadenas ou d’une étiquette sur un dispositif d’isolement des sources d’énergie d’une machine pour indiquer que celui-ci ne doit pas être actionné avant le retrait du cadenas ou de l’étiquette. Selon le Règlement sur la santé et la sécurité du travail, les travailleurs qui font des tâches de maintenance, de réparation ou de déblocage dans la zone dangereuse d’une de ces machines doivent appliquer ce procédé. Ce rapport démontre que les écrits donnent différents sens ou définitions au cadenassage, que les exigences légales en cette matière varient selon les provinces canadiennes et les pays, qu’il existe des différences normatives à cet égard, que les programmes de cadenassage des livres et guides diffèrent, et enfin, que des établissements québécois possèdent des programmes qui présentent des lacunes réglementaires ou normatives. Cette étude, qui contribuera à mieux outiller les entreprises désireuses de rédiger ou d’actualiser un programme de cadenassage, ouvre la voie à des recherches subséquentes sur l’application du cadenassage en industrie.À la suite de ce projet, une fiche technique a été développée afin de fournir aux entreprises un moyen simple et pratique de vérifier le contenu de leur programme de cadenassage._x000D_ Abstract_x000D_ Lockout reduces the risks posed by maintenance, repair and unjamming work on industrial machines. The CSST recently indicated that 5,225 accidents, six of which are fatal, still occur annually during the execution of such work on machines that are improperly or not locked out. Canadian standard CSA Z460-05 defines lockout as the placement, in accordance with an established procedure, of a lock or tag on a machine’s energy-isolating device in order to indicate that it must not be operated until the lock or tag is removed. According to the Regulation respecting occupational health and safety, workers who perform maintenance, repair or unjamming tasks in the danger zone of one of these machines must apply this process. This report shows that publications give different meanings or definitions to lockout, that the legal requirements on this subject vary by Canadian province and by country, that there are normative differences in this respect, that the lockout programs in books and guides differ, and finally, that Québec establishments have programs with regulatory or normative deficiencies. This study, which will help companies wanting to draw up or carry out a lockout program be better equipped, will open the way to subsequent research on the application of lockout in industry.Following this project, a technical fact sheet was developed to provide companies with a simple and practical means of verifying the content of their lockout programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".