MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519544887 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v9i3.312

Clarifying Definitions for the Massage Therapy Profession: the Results of the Best Practices Symposium†

2016· article· en· W2519544887 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMassage Therapy Foundation
KeywordsMassageCLARITYMedicineClinical PracticeAlternative medicinePhysical therapyMedical educationQualitative researchPsychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Massage therapists are at times unclear about the definition of massage therapy, which creates challenges for the profession. It is important to investigate the current definitions and to consider the field as a whole in order to move toward clarity on what constitutes the constructs within the profession. PURPOSE: To determine how a sample of experts understand and describe the field of massage therapy as a step toward clarifying definitions for massage and massage therapy, and framing the process of massage therapy practice. SETTING: A two-day symposium held in 2010 with the purpose of gathering knowledge to inform and aid in the creation of massage therapy best practice guidelines for stress and low back pain. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two experts in the field of massage therapy from the United States, Europe, and Canada. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of secondary cross-sectional data using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Three over-arching themes were identified: 1) What is massage?; 2) The multidimensional nature of massage therapy; and 3) The influencing factors on massage therapy practice. DISCUSSION: The data offered clarifying definitions for massage and massage therapy, as well as a framework for the context for massage therapy practice. These clarifications can serve as initial steps toward the ultimate goal of creating new theory for the field of massage therapy, which can then be applied in practice, education, research, and policy. CONCLUSIONS: Foundational research into how experts in the profession understand and describe the field of massage therapy is limited. Understanding the potential differences between the terms massage and massage therapy could contribute to a transformation in the profession in the areas of education, practice, research, policy and/or regulation. Additionally, framing the context for massage therapy practice invites future discussions to further clarify practice issues.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.393
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.151 · 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