MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011274948 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16760

Nurse Staffing and Work Status in Medical, Surgical and Obstetrical Units in Ontario Teaching Hospitals

2002· article· en· W2011274948 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda M. Hall, Diane Doran, Gloria Baker, George H. Pink, Souraya Sidani, Linda O’Brien‐Pallas, Gail Donner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualStaffingNursingMedicineWork (physics)Nursing staffUnit (ring theory)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the staff mix and work status of nurses in the adult medical, surgical and obstetrical units in Ontario's teaching hospitals. While staff nurses have extensive career experience, most have been on their unit a much shorter period of time. More than one-third of the nursing staff in the study were employed on a part-time or casual basis, with few indicating an interest in moving into full-time positions. The need for enhanced retention strategies on these units is identified, as well as the development of a better understanding of motivating factors for nurses' regarding full-time, part-time or casual work options.

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 categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207