Assessing the attitudes, knowledge and perspectives of medical students to chiropractic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess second-year medical students' views on chiropractic. METHODS: A three-step triangulation approach was designed, comprising a 53-item survey, nine key informant interviews and one focus group of 8 subjects. ANOVA was used to assess attitude-response survey totals over grouping variables. Constant comparison method and NVivo was used for thematic analysis. RESULTS: 112 medical students completed the survey (50% response rate). Subjects reporting no previous chiropractic experience/exposure or interest in learning about chiropractic were significantly more attitude-negative towards chiropractic. Thematically, medical students viewed chiropractic as an increasingly evidence-based complementary therapy for low back/chronic pain, but based views on indirect sources. Within formal curriculum, they wanted to learn about clinical conditions and benefits/risks related to treatment, as greater understanding was needed for future patient referrals. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the importance of exposure to chiropractic within the formal medical curriculum to help foster future collaboration between these two professions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".