MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007136851 · doi:10.1108/01443330310790660

Dimensions of control and nurses’ reactions to hospital amalgamation

2003· article· en· W2007136851 on OpenAlexaff
Marjorie Armstrong‐Stassen, Sheila Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)PsychologyControl (management)Perceived controlNursingMatching (statistics)Social psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This longitudinal panel study examined the relationship of three dimensions of control (personal, job and organizational) assessed in the initial phase of a hospital amalgamation on nurses’ reactions two years later during the amalgamation period. The participants were 179 full‐time nurses employed in four community hospitals being amalgamated into two. Nurses reported low organizational control, a finding consistent with the sense of powerlessness frequently associated with nurses. The hypothesis that the three types of control would differentially predict nurses’ reactions to the hospital amalgamation was supported. Personal control significantly predicted changes in perceived co‐worker support and help‐seeking coping over the amalgamation period. Job control significantly predicted changes in perceived supervisor support and direct action coping (putting more effort into doing one’s job) over the amalgamation period. Organizational control significantly predicted changes in perceived hospital support and trust in the hospital over the amalgamation period. The findings indicate the need to include more than one dimension of control in investigations of nurses’ sense of powerlessness and the importance of matching the type of control to outcome variables.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sociology and Social PolicySame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207