MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How do supervisor support and social care matter in long-term care? Correlates of turnover contemplation among long-term care facility workers

2019· article· en· W2912099912 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guytano Virdo, Tamara Daly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Care and Caring · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorContemplationLong-term carePsychologyLogistic regressionTerm (time)Job satisfactionSocial supportTurnoverNursingMedicineSocial psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined long-term care workers’ contemplation to leave their current employment situation. Direct care workers from three Canadian provinces were surveyed. Intention to leave was measured with a survey question asking participants whether they had seriously considered quitting their job recently. The results of the binary logistic regression indicated that both immediate supervisor support and social care tasks performed were statistically significant predictors of intention to leave. Higher levels of supervisor support and more social care tasks performed regularly were associated with lower intention to quit among direct care workers.

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 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Care and CaringSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207