MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2574119220

Exercise prescription: perceptions and physical activity habits in chiropractic students at CMCC.

2016· article· en· W2574119220 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Howitt, Eric Ethridge, Eric J. Nelson, Mike Gotuaco, Louis Demello

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticMedical prescriptionPhysical activityMedicineFamily medicinePerceptionAlternative medicinePsychologyPhysical therapyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care practitioner's physical activity (PA) habits are associated with their likelihood to recommend PA to their patients. The intent of this project is to better understand the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) students' perceptions and practices of PA and exercise prescription as this may predict exercise counselling they will provide to future patients. METHODS: A 27-item survey was distributed to Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) students (N = 744). The survey determined the proportion of CMCC students that meet the (2012) Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines. Additionally the survey recorded students' perceptions of PA counselling during patient visits and their own example of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. RESULTS: The response rate for the survey was 46% (N = 343). By using average estimates, it was determined that 72% of the respondents meet the (2012) Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines. 86% of the respondents perceived PA counselling to be usually or always relevant during patient interactions, and approximately 73% believed that exercise counselling is highly relevant to chiropractic practice. Furthermore, at least 88% percent believed that chiropractors must adhere to a healthy lifestyle in order to effectively model a healthy lifestyle to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of CMCC students meet PA guidelines, and perceive PA counselling to be highly relevant and important to patient encounters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→