Bibliographic record
Abstract
A historical review of the birth and development of chiropractic reveals its ancient roots. Chiropractors, in accordance with their knowledge and competence as neuromuscular specialists, focus primarily on muscle and joint pain. Over the years, evidence has been accumulating to support the effectiveness of chiropractic techniques in the pathology of the spine. The techniques are most commonly used in conditions linked to impaired „joint play“ of the vertebrae and pain in the spine, accompanied by dizziness and headache. The aim of the article is to explore chiropractic as a system of manual techniques. Material and Methods Documentary content analysis of bibliographic descriptions and relevant articles about historical development, concepts and theories, essence, distribution and application of chiropractic. Results Chiropractic is established as training and practice in many countries around the world. There is still no licensed training and practice of chiropractic in Bulgaria. In Bulgarian conditions, the closest term corresponding to the concept of chiropractic is manual therapy performed by a doctor. Conclusion A review of the literature reveals the possibilities of chiropractic techniques in musculoskeletal dysfunction of the spine in order to overcome musculoskeletal blockage and change in quality of life. Chiropractic is an established profession in many countries around the world - USA, Canada, Russia and Germany, but in Bulgaria there is no legislative framework for regulating the profession of chiropractor, as well as training in higher medical institutions. In Bulgarian conditions the chiropractic manipulative techniques are performed by doctors in the specialties Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Orthopedics, Rheumatology and Neurology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".