MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Nursing Worklife Model: Extending and Refining a New Theory

2007· article· en· W2114811521 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutJob satisfactionStructural equation modelingNursingWork engagementWork (physics)EmpowermentPsychologyTest (biology)Path analysis (statistics)Nursing managementApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: We tested a modification of Leiter and Laschinger's Nursing Worklife Model by examining the impact of structural empowerment on professional work environment factors that lead to nursing job satisfaction. BACKGROUND: The original model explains how five magnet hospital practice domains described by Lake (2002) interact to influence nurses' work lives by either contributing to or mitigating burnout. METHODS: A non-experimental design was used. Five hundred randomly selected nurses in Michigan were surveyed (response rate 66%, n = 332). Instruments included the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II, the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index, and the Index of Work Satisfaction. Path analysis was used to test the model. RESULTS: The final model fit the data well (chi2 = 96.4, d.f. = 10, NFI: 0.90, CFI: 0.43, RMSEA: 0.18), supporting both hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded Nursing Worklife Model demonstrates the role of empowerment in creating positive practice conditions that contribute to job satisfaction.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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