Relationship among organizational cynicism, perceived job insecurity and nurses’ work role performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Organizational cynicism is undesirable attitude that is reported to have a negative impact on employee security and performance. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship among staff nurses' levels of organizational cynicism, perceived job insecurity and work role performance.Methods: Descriptive correlational design was used to conduct this study. The study was conducted at a large university hospital, Egypt. Convenience sampling technique was employed to select (205) staff nurses. Three tools were used: Organizational Cynicism Scale, job insecurity scale, and Work role performance scale.Results: Organizational cynicism level was high, job insecurity level was moderate whereas nurses' work role performance was low. Organizational cynicism and all of its' three dimensions i.e. affective, cognition & behavioral had significant and positive relationship with job insecurity and negative with work role performance Also, there was a significant negative relationship between perceived job insecurity and work role performance.Conclusion: There were significant relationships among organizational cynicism, job insecurity and work role performance and theses three variables differed in relation to demographic characteristics of participants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".