MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396612403 · doi:10.1177/107937391603900303

Correlates and Consequences of Nursing Staff Job Insecurity

2016· article· en· W4396612403 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ronald J. Burke, Parbudyal Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Human Services Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob insecurityNursing staffNursingPsychologyMedicineWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The health care system, and hospitals, underwent considerable restructuring and downsizing in the early to mid-1900s in several countries as governments cut costs to reduce their budget deficits. Studies of the effects of these efforts on nursing staff and hospital functioning in various countries generally reported negative impacts with threats to job security emerging as an important outcome of these changes. Health care restructuring and hospital downsizing is again being implemented as governments struggle to reduce deficits at a time of worldwide economic recession in 2008/2010. This study examines correlates and consequences of job insecurity among Canadian nursing staff, with a focus on nurses’ well-being. Data were collected from 290 nursing staff working in hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Feelings of job insecurity in the sample as a whole were relatively low. Personal demographics and work situation characteristics were generally uncorrelated with feelings of job insecurity. Consistent with previous findings, perceived job insecurity was once again associated with less favorable work and well-being outcomes. Some suggestions for more successful approaches to addressing levels of subjective job insecurity are offered.

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)0.006
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Human Services AdministrationSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207