The Organizational Attraction of Nursing Graduates
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 the context of the global nursing shortage, only the most attractive employers are able to recruit a sufficient number of nurses to maintain high quality of care and ensure positive patient outcomes. It is important for health care organizations to align their practices and their employer marketing strategies with attraction factors important to nurses. This article presents the results of a survey of 666 nursing students graduating in the spring of 2009 in the Canadian province of Quebec. Hypotheses were tested using repeated-measures analysis of variance and post hoc tests. Consistent with hypotheses, the results showed that quality of care, type of work, compensation, and employer branding are organizational attraction factors that nursing graduates perceived as important, with quality of care being the most important one. These findings were later used by a Canadian university teaching hospital to optimize its employer branding and attraction strategy that resulted in an increase in the hiring of university-trained nurses. Further research is needed to examine organizational attractiveness for new nurses over time, across generations, and within various cultural contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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