Survey of students' perception of the jurisprudence, ethics and business management course at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to survey 2018-2019 Year III students at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in order explore their perceptions of the components of the revised Jurisprudence, Ethics and Business Management course. METHODS: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board. A paper survey was distributed to all enrolled students. Using a five-point Likert scale, students were asked if they perceived the course material was (i) well-presented and (ii) important for them to know as future chiropractors. Students were required to sign a consent form to participate. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 94%. Over 90% of respondents 'strongly agreed/'agreed' lectures, small group session and course assignments were well presented and important for them to know as future chiropractors. Respondents were more critical of the online business modules (on average, 50% 'strongly agreed/agreed'). CONCLUSIONS: The information from this survey will enable refinement of future versions of this course.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".