Research resource environment in Canada. Gathering knowledge in advance to inform chiropractic research priorities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the research resources and environment within the Canadian chiropractic profession. METHODS: All members of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (n=7200) were invited to access an electronic survey on research capacity, activity, and resources. Canadian chiropractic stakeholder organizations received an invitation to participate in a related survey. RESULTS: 505 CCA members completed the survey (7.0% completed response rate, 65% males, 19% with graduate degrees). Researchers (26 full-time and 67 part-time) produced over 530 authorships in the past five years. Clinical research and systematic reviews were the most common areas of involvement. Regular meetings were rarely reported between researchers and chiropractic stakeholder organizations. Stakeholders indicated using research for member education, negotiation with government or funders, direct inquiries, and increased credibility. Fewer than half of the organizations regularly evaluated their research needs. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic research resources in Canada are growing, but inconsistent communication and coordination between researchers and knowledge users persists.
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 | 0.034 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".