MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034118770

Sindrome del burn-out: valutazione del rischio e prevenzione in un’equipe di infermieri e personale ausiliario operanti in Cure Palliative

2008· article· en· W7034118770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)PopulationSubconsciousTubulopathyLimiting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burnout syndrome is a form of response to a chronic work-related distress. It affects people working in the so-called “helping professions”, in healthcare, and features a “multidimensional” etiopathogenesis. Its onset is characterised by the appearance of three psychological components, namely, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment, associated with a constellation of psychosomatic and behavioural symptoms. The paper describes a screening project aimed at assessing the risk of burnout in a group of nurses and auxiliary staff working in a palliative care ward, examining the links with the personality trait of alexithymia and identifying any possible prevention criteria. The project employs the Maslach Burnout Inventory and Toronto Alexithymia Scale. Out of 83 group members, 79 (95%) participated in the study project, which revealed low levels of burnout – compared to the average Italian Normative Sample – and low levels of alexithymia as well. The risk of burnout appeared highest among the group members who were of Italian nationality, single, structured workers and dedicated to palliative care alone, among nurses and staff members with a medium-to-low self-assessment of their professional\nskills. There were no significant gender-based differences. The complex picture of the syndrome, therefore, involves cognitive and behavioural, emotional and subjective value-based aspects, as well as aspects relating to the work organization and environment, with respect to which the unanimously shared criteria for effective risk monitoring and prevention are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome)Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207