MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1684707296 · doi:10.1111/nuf.12056

Job Satisfaction in Nursing: A Concept Analysis

2014· review· en· W1684707296 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Forum · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionAutonomyNursingPsychologyInterpersonal communicationNursing careJob attitudeInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyMedicineJob performancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TOPIC: Concept analysis and job satisfaction in nursing. PURPOSE: In this article, Walker and Avant's concept analysis methodology is used to examine and clarify the phenomenon of job satisfaction in nursing. SOURCES: Published literature. CONCLUSION: A review of the published nursing literature suggests that job satisfaction is an affective reaction to a job that results from the incumbent's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired, expected, and deserved. In health care, specifically nursing in a hospital setting, job satisfaction can be measured and identified. Job satisfaction is compromised of three attributes: autonomy, interpersonal relationships, and patient care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · 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