[Quantitative research on operation behavior of acupuncture manipulation].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore a method of quantitative evaluation on operation behavior of acupuncture manipulation and further analyze behavior features of professional acupuncture manipulation. METHODS: According to acupuncture basic manipulations, Scales for Operation Behavior of Acupuncture Basic Manipulation was made and Delphi method was adopted to test its validity. Two independent estimators utilized this scale to assess operation behavior of acupuncture manipulate among 12 acupuncturists and 12 acupuncture-novices and calculate interrater reliability, also the differences of total score of operation behavior in the two groups as well as single-step score, including sterilization, needle insertion, needle manipulation and needle withdrawal, were compared. RESULTS: The validity of this scale was satisfied. The inter-rater reliability was 0. 768. The total score of operation behavior in acupuncturist group was significantly higher than that in the acupuncture-novice group (13.80 +/- 1.05 vs 11.03 +/- 2.14, P < 0.01). The scores of needle insertion and needle manipulation in the acupuncturist group were significantly higher than those in the acupuncture-novice group (4.28 +/- 0.91 vs 2.54 +/- 1.51, P < 0.01; 2.56 +/- 0.65 vs 1.88 +/- 0.88, P < 0.05); however, the scores of sterilization and needle withdrawal in the acupuncturist group were not different from those in the acupuncture-novice group. CONCLUSION: This scale is suitable for quantitative evaluation on operation behavior of acupuncture manipulation. The behavior features of professional acupuncture manipulation are mainly presented with needle insertion and needle manipulation which has superior difficulty, high coordination and accuracy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".