A longitudinal analysis of the chiropractic profession from 1996 to 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To explore the relative attractiveness of chiropractic in Ontario, Canada from 1996-2007.\nMethods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study using administrative registration data from 1996-2007. Stickiness and Inflow concepts acted as proxy measures for relative attractiveness. Survival analysis was employed to identify practitioner groups more likely to leave practice.\nResults: Chiropractors grew from 1,955 to 4,185 from 1996-2007 in Ontario. Increases occurred in the proportions of female, and foreign-trained chiropractors. Stickiness indicators averaged changes of 0.29/year from 1997-2003, but from 2004-2007 the average was 8 times greater, at 2.42 points/year. Survival analysis showed that certain groups, like newer practitioners were at greater risk of leaving practice (HRR 1.33, p<0.05; CI 1.04-1.73). However, time-varying analysis showed a post-delisting, increase in profession-wide likelihood of leaving.\nConclusion: The chiropractic profession became less attractive in synchrony with government policy decisions. Following delisting in 2004, the likelihood of leaving practice increased for most chiropractors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".