MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595717697 · doi:10.14574/ojrnhc.v8i1.128

Differences in Autonomy and Nurse-Physician Interaction Among Rural and Small Urban Acute Care Registered Nurses in Canada

2008· article· en· W1595717697 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelly Penz, Norma J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyAcute careNursingProxy (statistics)MedicineFamily medicinePsychologyHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada, two groups of acute care nurses were compared on the work satisfaction variables of autonomy and nurse-physician interaction based on whether their workplace community population was rural (10,000 or less) or small urban (>10,000 but <100,000). For this analysis, the variable “size of community” served as a proxy indicator for hospital size. Kanter’s (1993) theory on the structure of power in organizations was the basis of the hypotheses. As predicted, the rural RNs (n=811) working in the smaller hospital organizations had significantly higher levels of autonomy [F(1, 1229)= 5.602, p<0.05] and higher levels of nurse-physician interaction [F(1, 1229)=27.78, p<0.001] than the small urban RNs (n=427). The findings suggest that the size of an organization or hospital setting does have an influence on the level of autonomous practice and interaction between nurses and physicians.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOnline Journal of Rural Nursing and Health CareSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207