Chiropractic Name techniques in Canada: a continued look at demographic trends and their impact on issues of jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous article, the author reported on the recommendations gathered from student projects between 1996 and 1999 investigating their preferences for including certain chiropractic Name technique systems into the curriculum at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC). These results were found to be congruent with the professional treatment technique used by Canadian chiropractors. This article reports on the data obtained during the 2000 and 2001 academic years, comparing these results to those previously gathered. In addition, because of the implementation of a new curriculum during this time period, there was unique opportunity to observe whether or not student perceptions differed between those students in the `old' curricular program, and those students in the `new' curricular program. The results gathered indicate that students in both curricular programs show an interest in learning Thompson Terminal Point, Activator Methods, Gonstead, and Active Release Therapy techniques in the core curriculum, as an elective, or during continuing educational programs provided by the college. Students continue to show less interest in learning CranioSacral Therapy, SacroOccipital Technique, Logan Basic, Applied Kinesiology and Chiropractic BioPhysics. Over time, student interest has moved away from Palmer HIO and other upper cervical techniques, and students show a declining interest in being offered instruction in either Network Spinal Analysis or Torque Release Techniques. Since these findings reflect the practice activities of Canadian chiropractors they may have implications not only towards pedagogical decision-making processes at CMCC, but they may also influence professional standards of care.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".