The Emergence of Naturopathy in Two Canadian Provinces: British Columbia and Ontario, 1920-1970
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper explores the development and regulation of naturopathy in two Canadian provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, prior to 1950. Naturopathy has been a regulated profession in British Columbia since 1936. In Ontario the regulated group, since 1926 until recently, has been ‘drugless therapy.’ Through a comparative case study we not only document the early history of naturopathy, and its regulation, but we explore the factors shaping professional regulation and development historically. In particular, we highlight the importance of provincial patterns of professional regulation, and inter-professional relations in shaping regulatory trajectories. Abstract: Voici un article qui traite de l’évolution et de la réglementation de la naturopathie dans deux provinces canadiennes, l’Ontario et la Colombie-Britannique, avant 1950. La naturopathie est une profession réglementée en Colombie-Britannique depuis 1936. En Ontario, le groupe réglementé a été, de 1926 jusqu’à tout récemment, celui des « praticiens ne prescrivant pas de médicaments ». Au moyen d’une étude de cas comparative, nous rendons compte des débuts de la naturopathie et de sa réglementation, mais nous étudions aussi les facteurs qui, pendant très longtemps, ont façonné la réglementation et l’évolution des professions. Nous soulignons en particulier l’importance des caractéristiques provinciales de la réglementation des professions et celle des relations interprofessionnelles dans l’orientation des trajectoires en matière de réglementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".