What is the Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC)? introduCtionThe Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC) is a multidisciplinary, collaborative not-for-profit charitable organization created to improve patient care.This mission is accomplished through fostering mutual respect and understanding between various disciplines and emerging fields, mainly through interprofessional education, engagement in key policy initiatives, and the promotion of whole-person research.There are five core disciplines involved in ACCAHC (acupuncture and Oriental medicine, chiropractic, direct-entry midwifery, naturopathic medicine, and massage therapy), and three emerging fields (Ayurveda, homeopathy, and Yoga therapy).Membership seats are held by the council of colleges, plus the accrediting and certifying agencies of these disciplines.Other members are emerging CAM professions who are striving to meet regulatory standards in the United States.
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 | 0.013 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.016 |
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".