MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1617311761 · doi:10.32597/dissertations/755/

Predicting Work Stress Burnout in Rural and Urban Emergency Medical Technicians Through the Use of Early Recollections

2002· dissertation· en· W1617311761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
SUSAN M. VETTOR

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutAttritionMedicineRural areaPsychologyFamily medicineNursingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem . Literature on work-stress burnout among emergency medical technicians (EMTs) suggests that they have maintained the same levels of burnout and attrition rates for the past 20 years. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between early recollections and burnout in EMTs working in urban and rural locations. Method . A demographic questionnaire, the Staff Burnout Scale for Health Professionals (SBS-HP), and two early recollections, were used to survey 120 emergency medical technicians in Toronto, Ontario and Mojave County, Arizona to assess their level of burnout and to identify various themes in early recollections. Results . The results from the analysis of the data from general demographic information, the SBS-HP, and the early recollections indicated that urban EMTs experienced higher levels of burnout than rural EMTs. No significant findings were found to correlate with any of the eight early recollection themes to global burnout levels, or the four sub-scales of the SBS-HP. Conclusions . As a result of the study the following conclusion was drawn: that EMTs who work in urban areas experience higher levels of burnout than those EMTs in rural areas.

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)0.009
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→