Chiropractic in North America: A Descriptive Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This paper provides descriptive data on chiropractors, their practice, and their patients in North America in the past decade. Method Five sites in the United States and 1 in Canada were chosen, and a random sample of chiropractors was interviewed. In each practice, 10 patients were systematically selected on a single day. A total of 131 chiropractors and 1275 patients were interviewed. Summary The results suggest that doctors of chiropractic have firmly established themselves within the health care system in the United States and Canada and are able to attract patients who come to them directly for treatment, for largely back-related conditions, and who are willing to pay for their care. This paper provides descriptive data on chiropractors, their practice, and their patients in North America in the past decade. Five sites in the United States and 1 in Canada were chosen, and a random sample of chiropractors was interviewed. In each practice, 10 patients were systematically selected on a single day. A total of 131 chiropractors and 1275 patients were interviewed. The results suggest that doctors of chiropractic have firmly established themselves within the health care system in the United States and Canada and are able to attract patients who come to them directly for treatment, for largely back-related conditions, and who are willing to pay for their care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".