Registered Nurse and Registered Practical Nurse Evaluations of Their Hospital Practice Environments and Their Responses to These Environments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, over 13,000 Ontario nurses were surveyed to explore how they evaluated their hospital work environments and their responses to these practice environments. The purpose of this paper is to describe and compare these nurses' evaluations and responses. Sixty-five percent of nurses who were mailed surveys completed and returned a survey. Significant differences were found between registered nurse and registered practical nurse characteristics such as mean age, full-time employment rates, mean years of nursing experience and proportion enrolled in university or college educational programs. Both groups reported weak professional practice environments; however, there were some significant differences between the evaluations by registered nurses and those of registered practical nurses. Although both groups reported weak job satisfaction and moderate levels of burnout, there were significan differences in other responses. Study findings have implications for managing and leading nurses and for strengthening human resources practices.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it