MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010802655 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2014.23836

Commuter Migration: Work Environment Factors Influencing Nurses’ Decisions Regarding Choice of Employment

2014· article· en· W2010802655 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dale Rajacich, Michelle Freeman, Marjorie Armstrong‐Stassen, Sheila Cameron, Barat Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWindsor Clinical ResearchUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyNursingWork environmentWork (physics)Job satisfactionFeelingPsychologyRole conflictMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurse migration is of global concern for every country, and study of migration can provide critical information for managers concerned with nurse recruitment and retention. This mixed-methods research examined factors influencing registered nurses' (RNs') decisions to work in their home country, Canada, or to commute daily to a nursing position in the United States. Measures included nurses' feelings about their work environment conditions, work status congruence (the goodness of fit between employer expectations and their own regarding hours and times worked), professional development opportunities, and their perceptions of organizational support and autonomy (freedom and independence) in the workplace. All work environment variables were significantly higher for nurses working in Michigan. Qualitative results supported these survey findings, providing additional information about nurses' satisfaction. Nurses in our sample were more satisfied with all the work environment factors examined, even when stress from commuting out of country was experienced. The environmental issues examined in this study should be considered by nurse managers concerned with recruitment and retention of nurses.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.147 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207