Professional pathways towards excellence in sports physiotherapy: opportunities and barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If you want to be around in 10 years you’ve got to do something to differentiate yourself from the pack. Christopher Evans The number of physiotherapists around the world is increasing. Data from the UK show that the number of registered physiotherapists increased by 41% between 2000 and 2009.1 In Canada, a 7.5% increase in the number of registered physiotherapists occurred between 2007 and 2011.2 The increase in the number of undergraduate and graduate entry physiotherapy programmes in Australia has also created higher numbers of qualified physiotherapists.3 While this growth in the international physiotherapy profession is positive, particularly in regard to meeting current and future needs of an ageing global population, a higher number of physiotherapists may create professional and personal challenges. Such challenges likely include greater market competition to attract consumers (ie, patients) in the private sector, and a greater number of candidates applying for particular physiotherapy positions; good for organisations, more difficult for individual …
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".