MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017169857 · doi:10.1201/9781003072430-22

Burnout and Coping Strategies: A Comparative Study of Ward Nurses

2020· book-chapter· en· W3017169857 on OpenAlex
E. Dara Ogus

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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutPsychologyCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyCoping behaviorApplied psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burnout in large organizations has been examined in a number of studies. Frequent use of maladaptive coping behaviours combined with a highly stressed ward environment may be leading ward nurses into a spiral that places them at a higher risk for burnout. Patient load may also be a factor contributing to coping style and burnout levels. Burnout is distinct from occupational stress in that it involves three components. This chapter examines burnout and coping strategies among medical and surgical ward nurses. It was hypothesized that nurses using high levels of negative pallialive coping would experience higher burnout than nurses using palliative coping minimally. Patient load may also be a factor contributing to coping style and burnout levels. When surgical beds are filled, the overflow is often placed in medical units until appropriate space can be found.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207