Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chiropractic philosophy which has been debated since the founding of chiropractic in 1895 has taken on new vigour over the past ten years. Despite a growing body of literature examining chiropractic philosophy, the chiropractic profession continues to be divided over this issue. To date, there has been little research examining the meaning of chiropractic philosophy to rank-and-file practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to present a philosophy index, based on thirteen items, which measures Canadian chiropractors' attitudes toward chiropractic philosophy. The internal consistency alpha reliability coefficient was .7700. Trends in practice philosophy were compared between males and females, among eight geopolitical regions, between those who attended the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College and those who attended other colleges, between those who graduated before 1983 and those who graduated after 1983, and income. The data indicate that distinct, identifable groups (empiricists, rationalists and moderates) exist within the profession, and that the profession is divided with respect to chiropractic epistemology, the role of science, chiropractic's status as an alternative form of healing and the etiology of disease. In addition, the data reveal statistically significant differences in attitudes toward philosophy across the country and college attended. The authors argue that more research needs to be done in order to understand more fully the meaning of chiropractic, its impact on practice and professional identity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".