The relationship of workplace empowerment and organizational commitment among First Nations and Inuit Health Branch nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing recognition of the relationship between the quality of nursing work environments and nursing work satisfaction and retention. The purpose of this descriptive correlational study was to test a model derived from Kanter's Theory of Structural Empowerment (1993) in a unique nursing population, describing the relationship between First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB) nurses' perceptions of workplace empowerment and their commitment to the organization. A convenience sample of nurses (n=70) employed in isolated and semi isolated nursing stations in Northern Manitoba responded to the Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (CWEQ-II) and the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Nurses in this study had moderate perceptions of structural empowerment and low affective commitment. This finding has important implications for the organization as affective commitment has the strongest relationship with employee retention, job satisfaction, and positive work outcomes. As hypothesized, total empowerment was positively correlated with affective commitment (r=.664, p.001). The implementation of structures that facilitate access to work related empowerment would be expected to increase affective commitment for this group of nurses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".