Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: I was delighted to see the article by Professor Kirkaldy-Willis in the June 04 edition, and to know that he is apparently hale and hearty at age 90. The situation in Saskatchewan came about due to certain people being in the right place at the right time. The professor covers most of this in his article. I would like to add a couple of credits for the sake of completeness. Around 1974, early in my association with the university orthopedic department, there was a chiropractic convention in Saskatoon. Dr. Herb Vear was there and expressed a wish to meet the professor. They seemed to hit it off very well, and I can remember being almost floored when Dr. Vear asked the professor about the possibility of chiropractic graduates doing a rotating residency in his department. The professor agreed without hesitation, and the program was born. Implicit in all of this was the need for a person to run this program. Dr. David Cassidy, at that time, was associated with Dr. Ron Gitelman in Toronto, and Ron suggested that David was the man. This proved to be a very fortunate choice, as David not only ran the program, supervising the clinical practice in his own office as well as attending the hospital rounds and conferences. Along the way, David Cassidy was able to earn a PhD, and has now moved on into a career in medical research. The university back clinic saw patients from the northern half of Saskatchewan. We needed the help of outlying chiropractors for continuing care. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, following a meeting with the professor and myself, agreed to this arrangement, and, I think, was due to the respect in which the professor was held by all. Professor Kirkaldy-Willis was steadfast in his loyalty to the chiropractic profession, and was a regular speaker at conferences. It was a huge boost to interprofessional relations, and I am pleased to have been there to see it unfold.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".