The constancy of work-related empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study describes experiences of work empowerment among staff members at the Rheumatism Foundation Hospital in Helsinki, Finland. METHODS: The data were collected on two occasions in 2004 and 2005 using a structured questionnaire with background variables and items concerning verbal, behavioural and outcome empowerment. The questionnaires were sent to all (n1=115, n2=112) members of multidisciplinary teams at the Rheumatism Foundation Hospital, with the exception of physicians, departmental secretaries and administrative personnel. The response rate at both data collections was 58%. The data were analysed by statistical methods. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were seen in work empowerment between the two data collections. Perceptions of work-related empowerment were relatively strong. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related empowerment appears to be relatively constant and independent of changes in the organization. Indeed there is good reason to ask whether work empowerment is primarily a function of the individual employee's strengths and competencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".