Student attitudes toward the International Clinical and Professional Chiropractic Education Position Statement and Evidence-based practice: a survey of UQTR chiropractic students.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the attitude of Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR) chiropractic students toward the International Clinical and Professional Chiropractic Education Position Statement and evidence-based practice (EBP) beliefs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to all the UQTR chiropractic students. Using a five-point Likert scale, students were asked to rate their level of agreement with the position statement (10 items), EBP (2 items), interprofessional collaboration (2 items) and vitalistic philosophy (2 items). Results: Survey response rate was 71%. Students most frequently reported strong agreement with the position statement, EBP and interprofessional collaboration. They also most frequently disagreed with vitalistic philosophy. The attitude toward the position statement was positively correlated with the year of study in the program (r=0.10, p=0.019), EBP (r=0.56, p<0.001) and interprofessional collaboration (r=0.45, p <0.001). Conclusions: UQTR chiropractic students demonstrate high levels of agreement with EBP and the Education Position Statement.
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 | 0.012 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".