Chiropractic Name Techniques : a review of the literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous article, the author discussed current trends in utilization rates of chiropractic “Name Techniques” in Canada, and provided recommendations for their inclusion into the curriculum at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. In this article, a review of the literature on “Name Techniques” was conducted, with interpretation and synthesis by the author. One hundred and eleven articles were found. These were: technique discussions (N = 39), case studies (N = 25), case series (N = 5), experimental studies (N = 25) and clinical trials (N = 17). The literature suggested that prone leg length testing and some x-ray mensurations may have acceptable inter and intra-rater reliability. In addition, there are several case studies that reported significant clinical benefits by patients receiving Activator, Alexander, and Upper Cervical treatments. Patients also reported improvements in quality of life while under either Upper Cervical or Network Spinal Analysis care. This information may help develop professional practice guidelines, and it may have implications for chiropractic research and education.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it