Comparison of chiropractic student lexicon at two educational institutions: a cross-sectional survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate student perceptions of chiropractic cultural authority, role in healthcare and use of terms at two chiropractic institutions, the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) and Parker University (Parker). METHODS: A unique survey was developed and administered electronically to Year 2-3 students (n=387) at CMCC and as a paper-based surveys to trimester 4-5 (comparison with Year 2) and 6-7 (comparison with Year 3) (n=277) students at Parker. Responses were anonymous. The survey assessed the likelihood that students at both chiropractic programs would use eight different chiropractic terms. The survey also assessed their preference toward different options with respect to chiropractic's cultural authority. RESULTS: Response rates were 36.2% and 78.1% at CMCC and Parker, respectively. Students at both institutions reported that chiropractic cultural authority was 'neuromusculoskeletal' (NMSK); however, CMCC students was more favorable toward 'musculoskeletal' (MSK) care compared to Parker students, whereas students at Parker favored 'wellness' (59.7%) compared to CMCC students (46.4%). Students at CMCC were more likely to use 'impingement' and 'joint dysfunction' whereas Parker students were more likely to use 'innate intelligence' and 'vertebral subluxation'. Both institutions were equally likely to use 'spinal lesion'. CONCLUSION: This survey found significant cultural authority differences between institutions. While this adds to the emerging need in the literature to evaluate the impact of curriculum and co-curriculum within chiropractic training programs on professional identity, explanations were not evaluated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".