MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991137364 · doi:10.4236/health.2012.48074

Assessing the relative perspective of the regulation of kinesiologists among other health professionals

2012· article· en· W1991137364 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kerry Braniff, William Montelpare, Moira McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesiologySWOT analysisMultidisciplinary approachScope (computer science)Health carePublic relationsMedicineNursingHealth professionsMedical educationPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessSocial scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formerly a self-governed profession, in the Province of Ontario, Canada, kinesiology was designated a regulated profession under the Regulated Health Professions Act (1991). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of current health delivery agents to the regulation of kinesiology. An 18-item survey was used to collect data, and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) framework was used for analysis. The data indicated that kinesiology provides a unique expertise adding to client and patient care and is a needed partner within the multidisciplinary health environment. Similarly, despite the need for the profession to clearly define, delineate, and promote its scope of practice to professionals and to the public, there are increased opportunities that exist within the health care sector, particularly in chronic disease prevention. The addition of kinesiology as a regulated health profession was not considered to be a threat by existing key stakeholders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207