Conference introduction and peer-review acknowledgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Federation of Chiropractic and the Association of Chiropractic Colleges have hosted a biennial joint education conference for many years; however, this was the first year that the proceedings were published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Journal of Chiropractic Education was delighted to sponsor the meeting by donating the work necessary to edit the proceedings for publication and postproduction indexing, thereby making these proceedings available in indexing systems searched by academics at universities worldwide, including PubMed, Thomson Reuters' Emerging Sources Citation Index, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and MANTIS. Brighthall, Inc., managed the call for papers, submissions, and administration of the peer-review process.The conference organizers recognized the international development of chiropractic training programs and the value of interactive formats and agreed to provide 3 different types of presentations for researchers to submit their work for peer review: platform presentation, poster presentation, and innovation panels. While most academics are familiar with platform and poster presentations, the innovations panels were designed to stimulate dialog and discovery among the participants where presentations were arranged by common topic. Following a set of 5-minute oral presentations, the floor was opened for sharing of ideas and moderated by a leader in chiropractic education. It is hoped that this new format encouraged vigorous discussion and promoted greater collaboration among participants.The call for papers was distributed in March 2016 and submissions were due June 1, 2016. All submissions were peer reviewed within a month by 33 independent reviewers from nearly every chiropractic training program around the world, represented by reviewers from 14 different countries. The peer-review committee is commended for exemplary work performed over a very short time. The peer reviewers included: Hasan Kerem Alptekin, MD, Bahçesehir Üniversity, Turkey; Fernando R.M. Azevedo, DC, Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, Brazil; David Byfield, DC, MPhil, Welsh Institute of Chiropractic, United Kingdom; Ashley Cleveland, MA, DC, Parker University, United States; Barry Draper, DC, PhD, RMIT University, Australia; Mark Feldman, DC, Central Queensland University, Australia; Ricardo Fujikawa, MD, DC, Real Centro Univeristario Escorial Maria Cristina, Spain; Rosemary Giuriato, DC, DO, Macquarie University, Australia; Julie-Marthe Grenier, DC, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada; Dominic Giuliano, DC, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Canada; Chris Hodgetts, BSC(Chiro), Murdoch University, Australia; Kelly Holt BSc(Chiro), PhD, New Zealand College of Chiropractic, New Zealand; Barry Kim Humphreys, DC, PhD, University of Zurich, Switzerland; Adrian Hunnisett, PhD, MPhil, McTimoney College of Chiropractic, United Kingdom; HanSuk Jung, DC, PhD, HanSeo University, South Korea; Charmaine Korporaal, MTech(Chiro), Durban University of Technology, South Africa; Henrik Hein Lauridsen, DC, MSc, PhD, Syddansk Universitet Odense, Denmark; David Lopez, DC, Universidad Central de Chile, Chile; Clay McDonald, DC, Logan University, United States; Michael Mestan, DC, New York Chiropractic College, United States; Sil Mior, PhD, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Canada; John Mrozek, DC, MEd, Texas Chiropractic College, United States; David Newell, PhD, Anglo-European College of Chiropractic, United Kingdom; Per Palmgren, PhD, Skandinaviska Kiropraktorhögskolan, Sweden; Robert Percuoco, DC, Palmer Chiropractic College, United States; Cynthia Peterson, RN, DC, MMedEd, Swiss Academy for Chiropractic; University of Zurich, Switzerland; Thiana Paula Schmidt dos Santos, DC, Centro Universitario Feevale, Brazil; Jean Theroux, BSc(Chiro), Murdoch University, Australia; Adrian Wenban, MMedSc, Barcelona College of Chiropractic, Spain; David Wickes, DC, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, Canada; Michael Wiles, DC, Keiser University, United States; Chris Yelverton, MTech(Chiro), University of Johannesburg, South Africa; Kenneth Young, DC, Murdoch University, Australia.
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 | 0.053 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.229 | 0.208 |
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".