MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158550885 · doi:10.1177/09514848211010427

Meaningful moves: A meaning-based view of nurses’ turnover

2021· article· en· W3158550885 on OpenAlex

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

VenueHealth Services Management Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Perspective (graphical)Work (physics)TurnoverTurnover intentionPsychologyJob satisfactionNursingSocial psychologyMedicineManagementComputer scienceEconomicsPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses’ turnover is a major global problem with significant service and cost implications. Although sizeable research inquiries have been made into the antecedents, the dynamics, and the consequences of nurses’ turnover, there is still a lack of fine-grained understanding of the psychological states that reflect the cumulative impact of different antecedents and immediately precede nurses’ intentions to quit either from their unit/organization and/or their profession. This paper introduces and develops a meaning-based view of nurses’ turnover. This perspective distinguishes between meaning in work (based on the nurses’ relationship with their work) and meaning at work (based on the nurses’ relationship with their work environment) and explain the implications of high/low meaning in and at work on nurses’ turnover. This meaning-based view of nurses’ turnover offers nurses, administrators and policy makers a deeper and a more nuanced understanding of turnover and promises more tailored remedies for the turnover problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.315 · 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