MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017688563

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP OF PRECEPTORS: PREDICTOR OF WORK ENGAGEMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION OF NEW GRADUATE NURSES

2009· article· en· W7017688563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthentic leadershipWork engagementJob satisfactionWork (physics)Test (biology)Graduate studentsJob attitudeVariance (accounting)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose o f this study was to examine the relationships between new graduate\nnurses’perceptions ofpreceptor authentic leadership (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004) and their work engagement andjob satisfaction. A predictive non-experimental survey design was used to test these relationships in a population of Ontario new graduate nurses working in acute care hospitals. The final sample consisted of 170 new graduate nurses (response rate= 39%). Consistent with Avolio et al.’s (2004) assertions: authentic leadership was positively related to work engagement and job satisfaction; authentic leadership and work engagement explained 20% o f the variance in job satisfaction; and work engagement was found to partially mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and job satisfaction. These results offer nurse educators and administrators a theoretical basis for creating preceptors preparatory programs that facilitate the development o f preceptors’ authentic leadership; thus improving the work engagement and job satisfaction o f new graduate 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 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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207