Comment protéger la santé des travailleurs dans un système qui ne repose pas sur les notions d’aptitude et d’inaptitude ? How to protect workers’ health in a system that is not based on the concepts of “capacity” and “incapacity” Cómo proteger la salud de los trabajadores en un sistema que no se basa en los conceptos de aptitud et ineptitud ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Québec, en santé au travail, l’approche de santé publique a été privilégiée à l’approche médicale individuelle, parce qu’elle est conséquente aux objectifs de la loi, à savoir la prise en charge par le milieu de ses problèmes et la diminution, voire l’élimination des dangers. Quant aux activités médicales individuelles, elles ne sont réalisées que lorsqu’elles sont légitimes, c’est-à-dire lorsque leur pertinence et leur efficacité sur le plan de la prévention ont été démontrées. Quelques évaluations l’ont confirmé, l’approche par programme des services de santé publique québécois fonctionne en général très bien et elle est efficace. Mieux que l’examen médical de chaque sujet, elle permet de centrer les énergies sur les expositions professionnelles et les composantes de l’organisation du travail susceptibles de provoquer des problèmes. Malgré toutes ses qualités, le système de santé au travail québécois se heurte à de sérieuses résistances institutionnelles et politiques qui ont compromis son développement et mènent progressivement à son essoufflement.<br>In Québec, in occupational health, the public health approach has been favoured over the individual medical approach because it is consistent with the objectives of the law, namely this community taking charge of its problems, and the reduction and even elimination of risk factors. Individual medical activities are limited to cases where the relevance and effectiveness of preventive benefits have been demonstrated. Some evaluative studies have shown that this Québec public health program approach works well in general, and is effective. Compared with the medical examination of each subject, it has a better potential for focusing energies on occupational exposures and on work organizational factors that could cause problems. Despite all its advantages, the Québec occupational health system is facing serious institutional and political resistance that has compromised its development and is gradually leading it to its dysfunction.<br>En Quebec, en salud laboral, el enfoque de salud pública ha favorecido el enfoque médico individual, porque éste es consecuente con los objetivos de la Ley, a saberse : la asunción por parte del medio de sus problemas y la disminución o eliminación de los riesgos. En cuanto a las actividades médicas individuales, estas no son realizadas sino una vez que son legitimas, le que quiere decir que se realizan cuando es demostrada su pertinencia y eficacia en el plano de la prevención. Algunas evaluaciones han confirmado que el enfoque por programa de servicios de salud pública en Quebec funciona muy bien y es eficaz. Mejor que el examen médico individual, este programa permite concentrar las energías en las exposiciones profesionales y en los componentes de la organización de trabajo que podrían provocar problemas. A pesar de todas sus cualidades, el sistema de salud laboral de Quebec, afronta serias oposiciones institucionales y políticas que han comprometido su desarrollo y conducen progresivamente a su estancamiento.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".