User’s guide to the chiropractic literature-IA: how to use an article about therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice is now a fundamental movement of established importance within health care, yet it remains a contentious concept for some chiropractors. Traditionally, chiropractic institutions have emphasized the development of clinical acumen over critical appraisal skills, 1 Keating J.C. Green B.N. Johnson C.D. “Research” and “science” in the first half of the chiropractic century. J Maniulative Physiol Ther. 1995; 18: 357-378 Google Scholar with the result that many practitioners may feel unequipped to interpret, or apply, the results of current literature to their everyday practices. Additionally, it can be difficult to incorporate the results of widely publicized studies that report equivocal or negative outcomes of modalities typically associated with chiropractic care (ie, manipulation) and which seem to fly in the face of positive clinical experience. Evidence-based practice is demanding a paradigm shift among all health care providers, and these concerns are not unique to chiropractic. CorrectionsJournal of Manipulative & Physiological TherapeuticsVol. 26Issue 6Preview Full-Text PDF
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) | 0.000 | 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".