The effects of a change in work status congruence on the attitudes of community health nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This longitudinal study examined the relationship between work status congruence and nurses ’ (N = 746) attitudes. Nurses whose work status changed from congruent to incongruent reported increased work-family conflict and burnout whereas nurses whose work status changed from incongruent to congruent reported increased job satisfaction and a decrease in burnout. Work status congruence is the extent to which employees ’ current work status (full time or part time) is congruent with their desired work status (Maynard, Thorsteinson & Parfyonova, 2006). Work status incongruence occurs when employees ’ work status is inconsistent with their preferred work status, i.e., they are working full time but prefer to work part time or they are working part time but prefer to work full time. Although there is substantial research comparing full-time and part-time workers, only a few studies have examined work status congruence (Barling & Gallagher, 1996; Thorsteinson, 2003; van Emmerik & Sanders, 2005). The present study makes a unique contribution to the limited research in this area by examining the impact of change in a person’s work status congruence. The research to date has been cross-sectional. We found no studies that have investigated work status congruence over time.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".