MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213915048 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655096.v1

Factors influencing turnover intentions of new graduate nurses employed in float pools

2021· preprint· en· W3213915048 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah McDermid-Flabbi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnover intentionFloat (project management)Job satisfactionTurnoverVariance (accounting)PsychologyMultilevel modelProductivityNursingBusinessMedicineSocial psychologyComputer scienceEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nursing turnover is a growing concern yet little is known about the turnover intentions of new graduate nurses (NGNs) employed in float pools. The purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between job satisfaction, work environment and psychological capital and turnover intentions among NGNs employed in float pools in acute care hospitals. A descriptive crosssectional, correlational non-experimental design was utilized with a sample of 56 NGNs employed in the float pool at two quaternary Canadian hospitals. Data were collected using an online survey and analyzed using multiple hierarchical regression. Job satisfaction was found to be the most significant predictor of turnover intentions and the overall study model accounted for 25-27% of variance of turnover intentions. Further development of organizational strategies is needed to improve job satisfaction, reduce turnover and improve retention to optimize patient care delivery, prevent loss of valuable clinical expertise and reduce costs of turnover.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNursing education and management→French-language works237,207→