Torque: An appraisal of misuse of terminology in chiropracticliterature and technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harrison et al 1 Harrison DD Colloca CJ Troyanovich SJ Harrison DE. Torque: an appraisal of misuse of terminology in chiropractic literature and technique. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996; 19: 454-462 PubMed Google Scholar , 2 Harrison DD Colloca CJ Troyanovich SJ Harrison DE. Torque misuse revisited. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998; 21: 649-655 PubMed Google Scholar , 3 Harrison DD Troyanovich SJ Harrison DE. Commentary: torque misuse revisited. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999; 22: 347-348 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar have written a series of papers on the mechanics of spinal manipulation; I have shown that the mechanics they used were incorrect. 4 Herzog W. Torque: misuse of a misused term. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998; 21: 57-59 PubMed Google Scholar They accepted my argument in some cases but not in others. These other cases involved some of the most important and basic principles of Newtonian mechanics. Because their disagreement was emotional rather than scientific, the person not trained in mechanics may be at a loss about who is right and who is wrong.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".