MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995039708 · doi:10.1108/gm-05-2013-0050

Correlates of career priority and family priority among hospital-based nursing staff

2014· article· en· W1995039708 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald J. Burke, Parbudyal Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueGender in Management An International Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographicsNursingWork (physics)PsychologySample (material)MedicineFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – This study explored the relationship of measures of career priority and family priority with a number of other variables including personal demographics, work situation characteristics, work motivations, work outcomes and indicators of extra-work outcomes such as affluence and psychological well-being. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 290 nursing staff, the vast majority female, working in Ontario, Canada, using anonymously completed questionnaires. Findings – Career priority and family priority were significantly and positively correlated in this sample. Nursing staff also rated family priority significantly higher than career priority. Personal demographics were associated with levels of both career priority and family priority such that married nursing staff, nursing staff with children, and nursing staff working part time reported lower levels of career priority, while married nurses and nursing staff having children rated family priority higher. Nursing staff having higher levels of work motivation also rated career priority higher. Career priority was significantly correlated with several work outcomes. Nursing staff indicating a higher career priority were more satisfied and engaged in their jobs. Somewhat surprisingly, family priority was generally unrelated to these work and well-being outcomes. Research limitations/implications – Recent writing on women in organizations has raised the question of can women “have it all”, a successful and demanding career and a satisfying home and family life. The findings contribute to this debate. Practical implications – Suggestions for both women and organizations to facilitate career and family facilitation are offered. Social implications – Increasing interest has been shown in women in the workplace, and whether they should “lean in” to advance their careers. The authors suggest that this strategy may be at odds with what women, and men, increasingly want. Originality/value – The paper highlights differences in the antecedents and consequences of career priority and family priority in a predominately female sample bringing work and family issues into the forefront once again.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender in Management An International JournalSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207