Degree of Vertical Integration Between the Undergraduate Program and Clinical Internship with Respect to Lumbopelvic Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures Taught at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine to what extent the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures taught in the undergraduate program used for patients with lumbopelvic conditions are expected to be utilized by students during their clinical internship program at Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College or are being used by the clinical faculty. METHODS: A confidential survey was distributed to clinical faculty at the college. It consisted of a list of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures used for lumbopelvic conditions taught at that college. Clinicians were asked to indicate the frequency with which they performed or they required students to perform each item. RESULTS: Seventeen of 23 clinicians responded. The following procedures were most likely required to be performed by clinicians: posture; ranges of motion; lower limb sensory, motor, and reflex testing; and core orthopedic tests. The following were less likely to be required to be performed: Waddell testing, Schober's test, Gillet tests, and abdominal palpation. Students were expected to perform (or clinicians performed) most of the mobilization (in particular, iliocostal, iliotransverse, and iliofemoral) and spinal manipulative therapies (in particular, the procedures referred to as the lumbar roll, lumbar pull/hook, and upper sacroiliac) taught at the college. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that there was considerable, but not complete, vertical integration between the undergraduate and clinical education program at this college.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".