Research in Chiropractic Education: An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this review were to update the 1997 report on research in chiropractic education from the Research Agenda Conference in 1996 and to provide recommendations for the future direction of this research. METHODS: We conducted a review of the medical and chiropractic literature from March 1997 to March 2005 on the 7 thematic areas identified in the Research Agenda Conference's 1997 article (ie, curriculum, assessment, instructional methods, admissions, faculty development and evaluation, postgraduate and continuing education, and patient centeredness). We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Alt HealthWatch, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, and ERIC. We hand searched conference proceedings and relevant journals along with the reference lists of retrieved articles. DISCUSSION: Although research studies in chiropractic education have been conducted on the 7 cited thematic areas, much have focused on instruction, curriculum, assessment, and faculty development. Research studies on areas recommended in the 1997 article, such as patient centeredness and continuing education, are less evident. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers in chiropractic education need to focus their efforts on key areas of importance and interest. They should consider collaborating across the professions with individuals who share the same interest and who have a productive and successful research track record. Individual researchers should be willing to share and acknowledge the work of other colleagues in and across professions. One such area of research that meets these criteria and that which is recommended for consideration is professionalism.
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 | 0.021 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".