A comparative overview of exercise and health related professions: athletic training, clinical exercise physiology and biokinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world has embraced the salutogenic effect of sport and physical activity in view of its role in promoting thewell-being of mankind. This international consensus has transformed this pastime into a multi-billion dollar/rand enterprise. The lucrative sport and physical activity enterprise provides substantial revenue to aspiring people interested in pursuing a career in the field. The numerous employment opportunities being advertised internationally in exercise and health related professions are actively being pursued by many South African biokineticists. Therefore, the overlap in the scope of practice among the professions of athletic training, clinical exercise physiology and biokinetics needs to be examined. This overview examines the similarities and differences among the most popular tertiary qualified exercise and health related practitioners in the United States of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. A systemic review of literature following the PRIMSA guidelines from 1959-2016 was undertaken. In total, 931 records associated with athletic training, clinical exercise physiology and biokinetics were identified, but only 18 were included in this review. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Evidence Hierarchy and a modified Down and Black Appraisal Scale were employed to synthesise the literature. This review highlights the admiral position that biokineticists are placed with regards to final phase rehabilitation of patients across the spectrum of healthy (athletes) to diseased and/or disabled individuals. It is hoped that the review will encourage affiliation and international accreditation of the profession of biokinetics with those of Athletic Training and Clinical Exercise Physiology
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".