MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nurse job satisfaction and retention: comparing public to private hospitals in Jordan

2004· article· en· W2028348762 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Majd T. Mrayyan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHashemite UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsJob satisfactionNursingDescriptive statisticsEconomic shortageNursing shortageJob dissatisfactionDescriptive researchMedicinePsychologyNurse educationGovernment (linguistics)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To identify variables of Jordanian nurses' job satisfaction and retention. Comparisons were performed between three public and two private hospitals. BACKGROUND: There has been little research on nurse job satisfaction and retention in Jordan. Interest in nurse retention is renewed with each cycle of nursing shortage. METHODS: A descriptive design using surveys guided this study through convenience sample of 438 nurses. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Nurses reported that they were "moderately satisfied" in their jobs with "neutral" opinion about their retention. Nurses who work in private hospitals were more satisfied and intended to retain their jobs more than nurses in public hospitals. CONCLUSION: Nurse job satisfaction and retention are related concepts; nurses who are satisfied in their jobs are likely to retain these jobs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations198
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ManagementSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207