MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399406286 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i4.2758

"Bridging the Gap: Emotional Intelligence, Job Satisfaction, and Their Influence on Nurses' Turnover Intentions"

2023· article· en· W4399406286 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N Hidayathulla., M. Nirmala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionTurnover intentionBridging (networking)PsychologyEmotional intelligenceSocial psychologyJob attitudeApplied psychologyJob performanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI), Job Satisfaction (JS), and Turnover Intentions (TI) among nurses, aiming to address critical gaps in existing literature. Demographic analysis of 177 respondents reveals a predominantly female, young, and less experienced workforce within the nursing profession. Using correlation and regression analyses, the study finds a robust positive correlation between EI and JS, with EI explaining nearly half of the variance in JS. Additionally, a significant negative correlation is identified between JS and TI, highlighting the important role of JS in mitigating nurses' intentions to leave their jobs. Furthermore, the study uncovers a moderate negative correlation between EI and TI, underscoring the potential of EI to influence nurses' turnover intentions. However, the findings also suggest the presence of unexplored factors impacting nurses' intentions to leave. This study provides valuable insights for healthcare organizations to foster EI skills among nurses, enhance JS, and ultimately reduce turnover rates. Further research is recommended to comprehensively understand the complex determinants of turnover intentions in nursing contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicHealthcare Education and Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207