MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283945637 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v6n5p111

A study on work engagement among nurses in Japan: the relationship to job-demands, job-resources, and nursing competence

2016· article· en· W2283945637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toshihiro Hontake, Hiromi Ariyoshi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork engagementCompetence (human resources)PsychologyJob attitudeScale (ratio)Job designJob performanceWork (physics)NursingSocial psychologyJob satisfactionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study reviewed the state of work engagement among nurses in Japan, and the relationship to job demands and job resources. Additionally, our research attempted to clarify the role of work engagement on the effects that job-resources have on nursing competence. Methods: A questionnaire composed of the Utrecht Work-Engagement Scale the Brief Scales for Job Stress-Nurse and the Clinical Nursing Competence Self-Assessment Scale was distributed to 917 nurses working in hospitals in Japan. Results: A negative correlation, although slight, was found between job-demands and work engagement. There was a positive correlation between job-resources and work engagement, however, work engagement was only found to be significantly affected by job fulfillment. Work engagement seems to mediate the relationship between job-resources and job-demands however the results from the path analysis did not fully support this model. Conclusions: Our study did not sufficiently explain the relationships between variables. It can be suggested that the correlations between job-resources, job-demands, and work engagement are bidirectional or circulatory, rather than unidirectional.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207