MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127054307 · doi:10.4000/15lme

Former des apprenti·es à la santé et sécurité au travail : un fardeau pour les enseignant·es professionnel·les ?

2025· article· fr· W7127054307 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathilde Romanens, Nadia Lamamra, Barbara Duc, Gilles Descloux

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Dual (grammatical number)Position (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En Suisse, les apprenti-e-s formé-e-s dans le dispositif dual connaissent une surraccidentabilité et une surexposition à des risques physiques et psychiques. Dans ce contexte, les enseignant-e-s en école professionnelle ont un rôle central dans la transmission des savoirs de SST. Pourtant, leur réalité reste encore peu documentée. Fondée sur des entretiens individuels menés auprès d’enseignant-e-s professionnel-le-s, cette contribution interroge les rôles qu’elles et ils endossent, les contenus et les modalités de transmission des savoirs de SST, ainsi que les obstacles à cette dernière. Un cadre prescriptif flou, l’absence de légitimité du volet scolaire, le manque de ressources les empêchent d’agir ou réduisent la SST à la santé physique et à la sécurité. Cette contribution questionne plus largement la position dominée de l’école dans le système dual suisse et réfléchit aux possibles : entre « monde idéal » et espace pénétré par les logiques économiques. Au final, quelles conséquences pour les enseignant-e-s ?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.018
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santéSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207