MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158662988 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.04.008

Invited Commentary: Self-Reported Nonmusculoskeletal Responses to Chiropractic Intervention: A Multination Survey by Leboeuf-Yde et al

2005· letter· en· W2158662988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Budgell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticSpinal manipulationMedicineLow back painAlternative medicinePsychological interventionPhysical therapyManual therapyBack painPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large body of credible clinical evidence more than adequately vindicates the use of spinal manipulation in the treatment of a range of musculoskeletal disorders.1-3 Furthermore, even in the absence of a robust physiological explanation, health professionals of whatever ilk can generally accept that a prudently applied force might alter the behavior of a joint and thereby provide at least some relief of musculoskeletal symptoms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0210.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207