MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early retirement among Registered Nurses: contributing factors

2008· article· en· W1920312408 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsIncentiveWorkforceEconomic shortageNursingBonferroni correctionGovernment (linguistics)Nursing managementTest (biology)MedicinePsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study explored the factors that influence nurses to retire early and the incentives that might encourage them to stay longer in employment. BACKGROUND: The increasing number of nurses taking early retirement reduces an already depleted nursing workforce. METHODS: A mail-out questionnaire was sent to 200 randomly selected nurses aged 45 and older, living in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. SPSS descriptors were used to outline the data. Multiple t-tests, with a Bonferroni correction, were conducted to test for significant differences between selected responses by staff nurses and a group of nurse managers, educators and researchers. RESULTS: Of 124 respondents, 71% planned to retire by age 60. Staff nurses and a group of nurse managers/educators/researchers differed significantly in two reasons for leaving. The two groups also differed significantly in five of the incentives to stay. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study could prove useful for healthcare and government organizations developing retention strategies to forestall the predicted shortage of nurses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.132 · 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