Staff Nurse Empowerment and Effort-Reward Imbalance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test an expanded model of Rosabeth Moss Kanter's Structural Theory of Organizational Behaviour (Kanter 1977; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian and Wilk 2001) by examining the relationship between nurses' empowerment and their perceptions of effort-reward imbalance (Siegrist 1996). A sample of 112 staff nurses employed in teaching hospitals in Ontario participated in this study (58% return rate). A descriptive correlational survey design was used to collect data by eLiciting responses to five self-report instruments: the Conditions of Work Effectiveness II, the Job Activities Scale II, and the Organizational Relationships Scale II (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian and Wilk 2001), the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) scale (Siegrist and Peter 1999a) and a demographic questionnaire. Staff nurses were only moderately empowered, and 24.1% perceived their work to have more efforts than rewards, according to Siegrist's guidelines.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".