Name techniques in Canada: current trends in utilization rates and recommendations for their inclusion at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its establishment in 1945, the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) has predominately adhered to a Diversified model of chiropractic technique in the core curriculum; however, many students and graduates have voiced a desire for greater exposure to chiropractic techniques other than Diversified at CMCC. A course structure is presented that both exposes students to a plethora of different “Name techniques” and provides students with a forum to appraise them critically. The results of a student survey suggested that both of these learning objectives have been successfully met. In addition, an assignment was designed that enabled students to recommend which, if any, “Name techniques” should be included in the curriculum of the College. The recommendations from these assignments were compiled since the 1996/97 academic year. The results indicated an overwhelming demand for the inclusion of Thompson Terminal Point, Gonstead, Activator Methods, Palmer HIO and Active Release Therapy techniques either as part of the core curriculum or in an elective program. These recommendations parallel the practice activities of Canadian chiropractors.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it