ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT'S EFFECT ON CARE AIDES' PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN WESTERN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This quantitative cross-sectional sub project investigated the effects of organizational context and individual characteristics on psychological empowerment of care aides working in nursing homes. We analyzed data collected from 3765 care aides from 91 nursing homes across Western Canada between 09/2019 and 03/2020. From the random-intercept mixed effects regression models we identified significant predictors at different levels for each component of psychological empowerment. At the organizational outer context level: region and home ownership model. At the inner context (care unit) level: formal interactions (β=-0.07, p=0.03; competence), evaluation (β=0.20, p<0.02; self-determination), culture (β=0.20, p<0.02; self-determination), communication (β=0.16, p<0.001; self-determination), and social capital (β=0.22, p=0.01; impact). At the individual level: care aides’ sex, language and job satisfaction.These findings suggest important ways in which contextual elements may influence staff quality of work life characteristics and underscore the need to consider context operating at different levels, as well as consider individual and contextual interaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".