MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

"Destructive Leadership, Burnout and Affective Commitment among Nurses"

2016· article· en· W2737027892 on OpenAlex
Steven Kilroy, Denis Chênevert, Janine Bosak

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepersonalizationBurnoutPsychologyEmotional exhaustionAuthentic leadershipSocial psychologyContext (archaeology)Organizational citizenship behaviorOrganizational commitmentHostilityNomological networkStructural equation modelingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined impact of destructive leadership (supervisor hostility) on nurses’ affective organizational commitment through the mediating role of burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization). The study was conducted among 2,175 nurses working across Canadian hospitals. Structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses revealed that destructive leadership was negatively related to burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) and affective commitment. Moreover, the two dimensions of burnout together partially mediated the relationship between destructive leadership and affective commitment. This study contributes to the nomological network of the destructive leadership concept by investigating the underlying mechanisms through which destructive leadership impacts pertinent organizational outcomes in the health care context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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