MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101071120 · doi:10.1108/09649420410525298

Making female first‐line nurse managers more effective: a Delphi study of occupational stress

2004· article· en· W2101071120 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Loo, Karran Thorpe

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen in Management Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodNursingDelphiHealth careLine managementStressorQuality (philosophy)BusinessFace (sociological concept)PsychologyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two‐round Delphi study was conducted with a panel of 41 Canadian female nurse managers selected from hospitals with at least 100 beds, in the province of Alberta, Canada. The Delphi study examined the changing roles of First‐line nurse managers (FLNMs) and major challenges they face with the aim of identifying major stressors and presenting recommendations for senior health care administrators to effectively support FLNMs in the future. Findings underscored the need to better prepare FLNMs for their changing and challenging roles. Organizations need to provide FLNMs with the resources to ensure quality patient care and enable them to spend more quality time executing their management responsibilities. Health care organizations should consider using a more participative management style, with mentoring, to empower and effectively use the extensive experience of their FLNMs to tackle the challenges of the future.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen in Management ReviewSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207