MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929758657 · doi:10.1016/j.echu.2018.10.005

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 7: Technics and Models From 1962 to 1980

2018· article· en· W2929758657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon A. Senzon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chiropractic Humanities · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChiropracticSubluxationMedicineFoundation (evidence)HistoryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the history of chiropractic vertebral subluxation (CVS) theories and models between 1962 and 1980. This period was marked by several innovative texts from Weiant, Homewood, and Harper, and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College’s Segmental Neuropathy. Technique developers during this period increased the complexity of models from upper cervical to full spine. The textbooks built upon previous theories, the scientific literature, work by Speransky, and instrumentation research. The texts influenced decades of research and theory. Weiant’s book surveyed the medical and scientific literature on CVS. Harper integrated modern neurophysiology with D. D. Palmer’s theories integrated with other chiropractic models based on research such as Weiant’s photoelectric instrumentation. Homewood’s book integrated Selye, Speransky, Verner, and several other models, which led to his neurodynamic model of CVS. Segmental Neuropathy was a completely new innovation of chiropractic theory with neurophysiology. Collaboration among authors developed into several new models. Chiropractic vertebral subluxation was viewed as a global neurological phenomenon and a neurodystrophic process. Technique models from Goodheart, Nimmo, Toftness, Ward, Gonstead, Grostic, Gregory, and Pierce laid the foundation for modern practices. The CVS theories during this period were complex and almost unrecognizable from previous theories. The inclusion of every major theory laid the foundation for this period’s wide set of models, research, and methods.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chiropractic HumanitiesSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207