Nurses’ work patterns: perceived organizational support and psychological contracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With unfolding human resource challenges in health care, little is known of the impact of changing work patterns and employment relationships on the organization and the nursing profession. Social Exchange Theory (perceived organizational support (POS) and psychological contracts) was used to gain understanding of the influence of nurse's employment patterns on employment relationships and individual, organizational and professional outcomes. The sample consisted of 650 randomly selected nurses employed in full-time, part-time, and casual positions across healthcare settings in Ontario, Canada. A cross-sectional survey design explored demographics, volition, POS, psychological contract, job satisfaction, career commitment, and job and career withdrawal. Work patterns and employment relationships are complex and cannot be examined in isolation of other variables such as volition and work congruence. Full-time nurses were found to have more of a relational psychological contract than part-time or casual nurses. The hypothesis was supported that the psychological contract has a direct effect on nurses’ job satisfaction, job withdrawal, career commitment, and career withdrawal. Nurses want to work different work patterns depending on their age and work-life demands. The importance of fostering strong employment relationships and relational psychological contracts to address such issues as an ageing workforce, nursing shortages, and economic demands is highlighted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".