Politics Ahead of Patients: The Battle between Medical and Chiropractic Professional Associations over the Inclusion of Chiropractic in the American Medicare System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care professions struggling for legitimacy, recognition, and market share can become disoriented to their priorities. Health care practitioners are expected to put the interests of patients first. Professional associations represent the interests of their members. So when a professional association is composed of health care practitioners, its interests may differ from those of patients, creating a conflict for members. In addition, sometimes practitioners' perspectives may be altered by indoctrination in a belief system, or misinformation, so that a practitioner could be confused about the reality of patient needs. Politicians, in attempting to find an expedient compromise, can value a "win" in the legislative arena over the effects of that legislation. These forces all figure into the events that led to the acceptance of chiropractic into the American Medicare system. Two health care systems in a political fight lost sight of their main purpose: to provide care to patients without doing harm.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".