MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1979797222 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v3n2p206

Burnout in Greek Medical and Mental Health Care Workers

2011· article· en· W1979797222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ioanna V. Papathanasiou, D. Damigos, Venetsanos Mavreas

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepersonalizationEmotional exhaustionBurnoutMental healthOccupational burnoutHealth careMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryNursingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Job Burnout affects job performance ability. Studies show a higher level of burnout in health professionals. The purpose of this study was to investigate possible differences in professional burnout subscales between health workers in medical and mental health sector. The sample constituted of randomly selected 240 workers in medical health sector and 217 in mental health sector, aged 39.8± 7.9 years old. Health workers from University and General Hospitals from all over Greece participated in the study. Maslach’s burnout inventory was used. SPSS 17.0 was used for statistics. The majority of health professionals were women. Over 50 % of workers in mental health sector showed low emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, while one third of them gave a high personal accomplishment score. Mental health professionals showed statistically significantly lower scores in emotional exhaustion and depersonalization , in comparison with medical sector workers. Different working environments influence the development of health care workers’ burnout

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→