A retrospective demographic study at the Calgary Urban Project Society: chiropractic service delivery beyond upper-middle class
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The segments of society that suffer the greatest musculoskeletal disability tend to be the lower income groups(1,2,3) and yet little has been written about their use of chiropractic care. This one year retrospective study was intended to gain insight into chiropractic service utilization within this low-income bracket by examining the demographics of users of chiropractic care at Calgary Urban Project Society (CUPS) Health Clinic. From July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998 six hours of volunteer chiropractic services per week were provided at CUPS and utilization data was abstracted from these files. The results of the study include the fact that 988 chiropractic treatments were rendered to 183 individuals (67% men, 33% women) exclusively for musculoskeletal concerns. The average number of visits per individual was 5.4 (sd = 7.6). Broken down by gender women made 7.1 (sd = 9.3) visits, and men 4.6 (sd = 6.6) visits. Most did not fill in the “occupation section” and only a third of those who responded were in labour positions. The number of treatments rendered without any remuneration from Alberta Health Care (ABHC) totalled to 420-47 treatments were to out of province claimants, 36 to those with no health care coverage whatsoever and the rest, 337 to those who claimed to have an ABHC number.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".