Attitudes Toward Chiropractic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the attitudes of Canadian obstetricians toward chiropractic with a 38-item cross-sectional survey. Ninety-one obstetricians completed the survey, for a response rate of 14% (91 of 659). Overall, 30% of respondents held positive views toward chiropractic, 37% were neutral, and 33% reported negative views. Most (77%) reported that chiropractic care was effective for some musculoskeletal complaints, but 74% disagreed that chiropractic had a role in treatment of non-musculoskeletal conditions. Forty percent of respondents referred at least some patients for chiropractic care each year, and 56% were interested in learning more about chiropractic care. Written comments from respondents revealed concerns regarding safety of spinal manipulation and variability among chiropractors. Canadian obstetricians' attitudes toward chiropractic are diverse and referrals to chiropractic care for their patients who suffer from pregnancy-related low back pain are limited. Improved interprofessional relations may help optimize care of pregnant patients suffering from low back pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".