Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a concept analysis of span of management. BACKGROUND: Span of management is an important structural variable in evaluating the contributions of nursing managers to healthcare systems. Span of management is typically measured as a ratio. A wide variety of operational definitions have been applied and these differences have not been reconciled. DATA SOURCES: A search of CINAHL, PsychINFO and Business Source Premier was completed in 2007 using the terms span of management, span of control, organizational structure, hierarchy, supervisory ratio and work group size. Key publications (1975-2007) and seminal works were included. Review methods. Morse's concept analysis approach was used to determine the pragmatic utility of the concept. A critical appraisal of the literature assessed the use of the concept across disciplines, identified inconsistencies within the concept, and uncovered assumptions and conceptual gaps. FINDINGS: At the organizational level, span represents supervisory capability. At the level of the manager, span may reflect reporting structure, closeness of contact, or scope of the role. At the work group level, span quantifies work group size. At the employee level, span represents employee support. These measures are influenced by units of measurement and by context. CONCLUSION: A systematic understanding of span of management concepts, measures and determinants will assist nurse executives in selecting parameters to quantify the allocation of managerial resources. Researchers can incorporate these parameters in comparisons across studies and in advancing the science of nursing management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".