A clinical practice guideline update from the CCA.CFCRB-CPG.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AuthorsThe Canadian Chiropractic Association (The CCA) andthe Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory andEducational Accrediting Boards (CFCREAB), ClinicalPractice Guidelines Development Initiative (TheCCA•CFCREAB-CPG), Guidelines Development Com-mittee (GDC) comprising (alphabetic listing): ElizabethAnderson-Peacock, BSc, DC (Barrie, ON); Roland Bry-ans, BA, DC, Chair (Clarenville, NL); Martin Descar-reaux, PhD, DC (Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres,Trois-Rivieres, QC); Henri Marcoux, DC, DABCO,FCCS(C), FCCO(C) (Winnipeg, MB); Brock Potter, BSc,DC (North Vancouver, BC); Rick Ruegg, BSc, PhD, DC(Associate Dean, Clinical Education, Canadian MemorialChiropractic College [CMCC], Toronto, ON); LynnShaw, BSc, MSc, PhD (Assistant Professor, School ofOccupational Therapy, The University of Western On-tario, London, ON); Robert Watkin, BA, LLB (Chair,HIV and Aids Legal Clinic Ontario [HALCO], Toronto,ON); Eleanor White, MSc, DC (Markham, ON).1. IntroductionIn 2003, The CCA†CFCREAB-CPG committed to an on-going process of development, dissemination, implemen-tation, evaluation, and revision of the guidelines it isproducing on behalf of the Canadian chiropractic profes-sion. This commitment was described in the DevDIERplan.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.031 |
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".