Chiropractic in North America: Toward a Strategic Plan for Professional Renewal—Outcomes from the 2006 Chiropractic Strategic Planning Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This report describes the process, participation, and recommendations of a set of consensus conferences on strategy for professional growth that emphasized elements of public trust and alignment between the chiropractic profession and its stakeholders. METHODS: In February and August 2006, an invitational group of leaders in the chiropractic profession convened an ad hoc Chiropractic Strategic Planning Conference. Public notice was given and support solicited through the Foundation of Chiropractic Education and Research. A series of international and interdisciplinary speakers gave presentations on the shifting of external social dynamics and medical culture, illuminating opportunities for the profession to extend its privilege and service. A systematic round-robin discussion was followed by group breakout sessions to develop recommendations on priorities for the profession to respond to challenges and opportunities. Recommendations were reviewed by the group as a whole and voted to consensus requiring more than 70% agreement. RESULTS: Participants determined a series of recommendations within 5 key domains for improving health professions practice: education, research, regulation, workplace, and leadership. CONCLUSION: The action steps proposed by the Strategic Planning Committee are first steps to provide better service to the public while making use of the inherent strengths of the profession.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".