MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473551238

Relationship between Ontario chiropractors' attitudes toward drug prescription rights and Canadian versus non-Canadian college of graduation: results from an online survey.

2016· article· en· W2473551238 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter C. Emary, Kent Stuber

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticGraduation (instrument)Medical prescriptionFamily medicineMedicineDemographicsMedical educationAlternative medicineDemographyNursingSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences between chiropractors' attitudes toward drug prescription rights based on chiropractic college of graduation. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of a 2015 survey of chiropractors from Ontario, Canada was performed. The questionnaire included 14 items concerning chiropractors' knowledge and attitudes toward drug prescription including demographics. RESULTS: 960 of 2,677 deliverable questionnaires were completed (36% response rate). The majority of respondents favoured limited prescribing rights for chiropractors regardless of college of graduation. Respondents who graduated from Canadian institutions were significantly more in favour of these privileges compared to graduates from non-Canadian schools. Over three-quarters of all respondents opposed the idea of chiropractors having full prescribing rights. No significant association was found between respondents' philosophical orientation and school attended. CONCLUSION: Ontario chiropractors who graduated from Canadian chiropractic institutions were most interested in obtaining limited drug prescription rights for the profession compared to non-Canadian chiropractic institution graduates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.112 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207