More alike than different: a comparison of male and female RNs in rural and remote Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore gender differences and similarities on personal, employment and work-life factors and predictors of job satisfaction among registered nurses in rural and remote Canada. BACKGROUND: Research suggests that men and women are attracted to nursing for different reasons, with job security, range of employment opportunities and wages being important for male nurses. METHODS: Using data from a large national survey of registered nurses in rural and remote Canada, descriptive and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify gender differences and similarities. RESULTS: A larger proportion of male nurses reported experiencing aggression in the workplace. Age, annual gross income and colleague support in medicine were not found to be predictors of work satisfaction for the male nurses, although they were for women. CONCLUSION: There are more similarities than differences between male and female registered nurses in factors that affect job satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nursing management needs to increase their awareness of the potential for workplace aggression towards male registered nurses and to explore the perceptions of interpersonal interactions that affect satisfaction in the workplace.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".