MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311274702 · doi:10.15362/ijbs.v28i0.459

Using the Job Demands-Resources Model to Underpin the Pandemic Nurses’ Turnover Intention Model to Examine Nurse Turnover Intentions in The Bahamas During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Theory Paper

2022· article· en· W4311274702 on OpenAlexaff
Shamel Rolle Sands, Christine L. Covell, Vera Caine

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bahamian Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyPsychological interventionTurnoverTurnover intentionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Nursing2019-20 coronavirus outbreakJob satisfactionMedicineSocial psychologyEconomicsManagementVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurse turnover can affect the accessibility of healthcare services, quality of patient care, and nurse well-being. Various individual and contextual factors have been found to predict nurse turnover. A growing body of evidence now suggests the emergence of another potential predictor─fear related to the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 also known as COVID-19. To limit consequences, stakeholders must collaboratively develop empirically supported interventions to reduce nurse turnover. The purpose of this paper is to explain the novel use of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model as a theoretical underpinning of the empirically supported Pandemic Nurses’ Turnover Intention (PNTI) model which is used to examine factors influencing nurses’ turnover intentions in The Bahamas during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bahamian Studies→Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→