MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919835050 · doi:10.3822/ijtmb.v12i1.441

What Should We Do Different, More, Start and Stop? Systematic Collection and Dissemination of Massage Education Stakeholder Views from the 2017 Alliance for Massage Therapy Educational Congress†

2019· article· en· W2919835050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Niki Munk, BS Jasmine Dyson-Drake, Diane Mastnardo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
KeywordsMassageSession (web analytics)BodyworkAllianceMedical educationStakeholderPsychologyCoachingTrainerMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Future of MT and Bodywork Forum, held July 27 during the 2017 Alliance for Massage Therapy Education (AFMTE) Educa-tional Congress in Tucson, Arizona, systematically gathered the thoughts and opinions of various massage education stakeholders through an exercise following the principles of the World Café model.Methods: Forum attendees participated in three, concurrent 30-minute Breakout Group Sessions (Rounds) in three different adjacent rooms, focused on Continuing Education, Schools, or Employment. During each session, participants rotated for 3, 2.5, 2, and 1.5 min-utes between four tables, asking what should be stopped, started, done differently, or changed in massage education related to the focus topic. Participants recorded their responses in marker on large Post-it® notes (3M, Maplewood, MN). These were reviewed by each of that round’s participants who awarded “importance points” to each response, with 6 blue and 3 orange dots each worth 1 and 3 points, respectively. The Post-it® notes with comments and point alloca-tions were transcribed into a data spreadsheet and analyzed for descriptive statistics and top scoring comments from each room.Results: 85–91 attendees participated in the three breakout sessions resulting in 674 comments with 3,744 assigned value points. The top five scor-ing comments from each room per session (N = 45) determined stakeholder’s most critical views. Stop comments made up the smallest total comments proportion (19%), yet largest top scoring com-ment proportion (36%)—potentially highlighting unified frustration for various massage education practices. Comparatively, Start comments made up 26% of total comments, but the smallest high-est scoring proportion (18%)-perhaps suggesting stakeholders feel it more important to improve what is already being done rather than beginning new endeavors in these areas.Conclusion: Stakeholder opinions on the future of massage therapy education can be system-atically gathered in large conference settings and organized, analyzed, and disseminated to inform field decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork Research Education & PracticeSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207