Degree of Vertical Integration Between the Undergraduate Program and Clinical Internship With Respect to Cervical and Cranial Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures Taught at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for the cervical and cranial spine taught to students during the undergraduate program at Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College are required to be used during their internship by their supervising clinicians and, if so, to what extent these procedures are used. METHODS: Course manuals and course syllabi from the Applied Chiropractic and Clinical Diagnosis faculty of the undergraduate chiropractic program for the academic year 2009-2010 were consulted and a list of all diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for the cranial and cervical spine was compiled. This survey asked clinicians to indicate if they themselves used or if they required the students they were supervising to use each procedure listed and, if so, to what extent each procedure was used. Demographic information of each clinician was also obtained. RESULTS: In general, most diagnostic procedures of the head and neck were seldom used, with the exception of postural observation and palpation. By contrast, most cervical orthopaedic tests were often used, with the exception of tests for vertigo. Most therapeutic procedures were used frequently with the exception of prone cervical and "muscle" adjustments. CONCLUSION: There was a low degree of vertical integration for cranial procedures as compared to a much higher degree of vertical integration for cervical procedures between the undergraduate and clinical internship programs taught. Vertical integration is an important element of curricular planning and these results may be helpful to aid educators to more appropriately allocate classroom instruction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".