MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110637833 · doi:10.1002/nur.10043

Measuring the hospital practice environment: A Canadian context

2002· article· en· W2110637833 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Exploratory factor analysisIndex (typography)NursingWork (physics)Work environmentSample (material)MedicineAcute careRelevance (law)PsychologyPsychometricsHealth careJob satisfactionSocial psychologyPolitical scienceGeographyComputer scienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of this study is to document the psychometric properties of the revised Nursing Work Index (NWI-R) in the context of a large Canadian sample of registered nurses. A self-administered survey containing the NWI-R was completed by 17,965 registered nurses working in 415 hospitals in three Canadian provinces. Using exploratory principal components analysis, with a forced one-factor solution, the practice environment index was obtained. In addition, key assumptions were tested from previous work about the rationale for the aggregation of NWI-R responses. In the Canadian context the one-factor solution provides a parsimonious index of the practice environment of registered nurses working in acute care hospitals. Further work is needed to determine the predictive capability of this index and its relevance to cross-national organizational contexts.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.293 · 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