MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208788531 · doi:10.3390/nursrep11040079

Work Environment Characteristics and Emotional Intelligence as Correlates of Nurses’ Compassion Satisfaction and Compassion Fatigue: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

2021· article· en· W3208788531 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stéphanie Maillet, Emily Read

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassion fatigueCompassionPsychologyCross-sectional studyEmotional intelligenceJob satisfactionEmpathyBurnoutApplied psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-sectional survey study examined the relationship between Canadian nurses’ work environment characteristics, emotional intelligence, compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction (n = 1271). Psychological demands, decision latitude, supervisor and coworker support, and emotional intelligence (EI) were significantly correlated with nurses’ compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue, except for two EI subscales. Furthermore, these relationships were stronger for compassion satisfaction than compassion fatigue, suggesting that they are influenced by different factors. Our results highlight the importance of creating reasonable psychological demands, empowering nurses to make decisions in their jobs, supportive relationships at work, and fostering the development of nurses’ EI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.390
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ReportsSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207