Identifying and prioritizing research to inform a research agenda for Canadian chiropractors working in sport - the Canadian sports chiropractic perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify and prioritize research to inform research agenda development for Canadian chiropractors working in sport. Methods: Clinicians, researchers and leaders from the Canadian sports chiropractic field were invited to participate in 1) a survey to refine a list of research priorities, 2) a Delphi procedure to determine consensus on these priorities, and 3) a prioritization survey. Results: The top three research priorities were 1) effects of interventions on athletic outcomes, 2) research about sports healthcare teams, and 3) clinical research related to spinal manipulative and mobilization therapy. The three highest ranked conditions to research were 1) low back pain, 2) neck pain, and 3) concussion. Collaborations with sports physicians and universities/ colleges were rated as important research collaborations to pursue. Conclusions: These results represent the Canadian sports chiropractic perspective to research priority setting and will be used alongside stakeholder input to set the first research agenda for the Canadian sports chiropractic field.
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 | 0.282 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".