MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors influencing fatigue in Chinese nurses

2008· article· en· W2113279588 on OpenAlex
Jinbo Fang, Wipada Kunaviktikul, Kärin Olson, Ratanawadee Chontawan, Thanee Kaewthummanukul

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing and Health Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeck Anxiety InventoryBeck Depression InventoryDescriptive statisticsPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexMedicineScale (ratio)Chronic fatigueAnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatrySleep qualityInsomniaStatisticsChronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors predicting fatigue in Chinese nurses were examined in a descriptive, correlational study. The participants were 581 nurses working in general hospitals in Chengdu City, China. The study instruments included the Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery Scale, the Job Content Questionnaire, the Exposure to Hazards in Hospital Work Environments Scale, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Job Dissatisfaction Scale, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and the Beck Depression Inventory. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation, F statistics, and multiple regression. The findings revealed that 61.7% of the variance in chronic fatigue and 54.9% of the variance in acute fatigue were explained by the independent variables. Intershift recovery was the most important variable in the explanation of acute fatigue, while acute fatigue was the most important variable in the explanation of chronic fatigue. Different intervention strategies should be implemented regarding the different influencing factors of acute and chronic fatigue.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.290 · 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