Accreditation Standard Guideline Initiative for Tai Chi and Qigong Instructors and Training Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence of the health and wellbeing benefits of Tai Chi and Qigong (TQ) have emerged in the past two decades, but TQ is underutilized in modern health care in Western countries due to lack of promotion and the availability of professionally qualified TQ instructors. To date, there are no government regulations for TQ instructors or for training institutions in China and Western countries, even though TQ is considered to be a part of Traditional Chinese medicine that has the potential to manage many chronic diseases. Based on an integrative health care approach, the accreditation standard guideline initiative for TQ instructors and training institutions was developed in collaboration with health professionals, integrative medicine academics, Tai Chi and Qigong master instructors and consumers including public safety officers from several countries, such as Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Korea, Sweden and USA. In this paper, the rationale for organizing the Medical Tai Chi and Qigong Association (MTQA) is discussed and the accreditation standard guideline for TQ instructors and training institutions developed by the committee members of MTQA is presented. The MTQA acknowledges that the proposed guidelines are broad, so that the diversity of TQ instructors and training institutions can be integrated with recognition that these guidelines can be developed with further refinement. Additionally, these guidelines face challenges in understanding the complexity of TQ associated with different principles, philosophies and schools of thought. Nonetheless, these guidelines represent a necessary first step as primary resource to serve and guide health care professionals and consumers, as well as the TQ community.
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 | 0.065 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".