Collaborative Community-Based Teaching Clinics at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College: Addressing the Needs of Local Poor Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inequities in access to health services, resulting from cuts in public sector budgets and inflation, greatly affect Canada's poorest and most vulnerable people. The purpose of this article is to describe the experiences of the community-based teaching clinics of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), located in the poor, inner city region of Toronto, where access to chiropractic care for this population has been enabled. DISCUSSION: Three chiropractic teaching clinics have been established in host facilities in the inner city community of Toronto. For over a decade, CMCC has had collaborative chiropractic clinics in the Sherbourne Health Centre (a southeast Toronto primary care facility), and Anishnawbe Health Toronto (an aboriginal health facility addressing the needs of urban First Nations people). For 3 years, we have been providing chiropractic services in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at St Michael's Hospital. The priority for these programs was the minimization of economic barriers to accessing care for poor and marginalized people. Outcomes have demonstrated high use when there is no economic barrier, excellent clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction, and a high level of collaboration with other health practitioners. CONCLUSION: The CMCC's external clinics program has enabled access to chiropractic services to thousands of people living in the inner city and urban aboriginal communities of Toronto. This has resulted in the minimization of barriers to accessing care, the provision of appropriate and effective care, and collaboration. These clinics also greatly increase students' awareness of, sensitivity to, and commitment to being part of the solution to these problems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".