Ethics Education in Chiropractic Colleges: A North American Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to survey Council on Chiropractic Education-accredited chiropractic colleges in North America and to describe curricular details on the teaching of bioethics. METHODS: A custom-designed survey was sent to chiropractic colleges. Total number of contact hours, whether the ethics was a stand-alone course or integrated elsewhere, type of instructor, and if there was a required or recommended course text were queried. RESULTS: Of 19 surveys sent by mail, 15 surveys were returned. The average time in ethics instruction was 18.7 hours including lecture format, small group tutorial, and self-study. Chiropractic ethics education includes 8 areas of content (boundaries, law and jurisprudence, professionalism, basic ethic tenets/principles, ethical codes of conduct, prevention of financial and of sexual abuse, and resolving an ethical dilemma). Some colleges include content taught to students under the domain of law and jurisprudence. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey indicate that there are opportunities to further develop the educational ethics program at Council on Chiropractic Education-accredited colleges. All colleges currently offer bioethics teaching. An expanded role for this content is recommended so as to offer optimal benefit for students and practitioners.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".