Effets du statut d’emploi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail : le cas des auxiliaires familiales et sociales et des infirmières de soins à domicile au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les données de cette recherche corroborent les principaux résultats de nombreuses études sur les liens entre la précarité d’emploi et les risques accrus à la santé et à la sécurité du travail (SST). Constituée de quatre études de cas de services de soutien à domicile (SAD) de Centres locaux de services communautaires (CLSC), cette recherche montre comment l’organisation du travail peut soutenir les stratégies protectrices auxquelles ont recours les auxiliaires sociales et familiales (AFS) et les infirmières de services de SAD ou leur nuire. Il s’avère que les pratiques organisationnelles positives auraient les mêmes effets sur les salariées régulières que sur celles qui ont un statut précaire, cependant ces dernières bénéficient rarement de ce soutien. Quant aux dysfonctionnements organisationnels, les personnels précaires disposent de moins de marges de manœuvre pour les pallier. Ils sont donc doublement à risque au regard de leur santé et de leur sécurité au travail. The data from this study corroborate the main results of many studies on the relationships between job precariousness and increased occupational health and safety (OHS) risks. This project consists of four studies of cases of local community service centre (CLSC) homecare services (HS) and shows how work organization can have a positive or negative effect on the protective strategies used by HS homecare workers and nurses. Positive organizational practices would have the same effects on regular employees as on those with a precarious status; however, the latter rarely benefit from this support. As for organizational dysfunction, precarious employees have less margin of maneuver to compensate for it. They therefore face a two-fold greater occupational health and safety risk.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".