Work empowerment in multidisciplinary teams during organizational change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conducted as part of a project dealing with work empowerment in multidisciplinary teams in a Finnish hospital specializing in providing care and treatment for different rheumatic conditions, this study set out to explore the associations between organizational change factors and perceived work empowerment in a setting where patients with chronic diseases are being cared for by multiprofessional teams. All health‐care professionals working at the hospital under investigation were invited to take part in the survey. Data were collected in 2005 with a structured questionnaire consisting of five parts: background variables, organizational change factors, aspects of work empowerment as well as factors promoting and impeding empowerment. Organizational change factors correlated with work empowerment as well as factors promoting and impeding empowerment. There was little agreement by multiprofessional teams that factors relating to organizational change were present in their work setting. Organizational change factors are important in order to be able to meet the demands by facilitating optimal action during organizational changes. The planning and implementing of organizational changes should be performed in cooperation with personnel throughout the organization at all stages. It would be important to address potential difficulties and try to pre‐empt any problems from the planning stage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".