East Meets West: Perspectives on the Development of Chiropractic Education and Profession Under Hong Kong’s “One Country, Two Systems” Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Hong Kong, chiropractic care developed under the national policy of "one country, two systems," whereby Hong Kong retained its own economic and political systems while remaining part of mainland China. This environment allowed Western education standards and practices to be adopted while integrating local cultural beliefs. In this respect, chiropractic healthcare emerged as an early model of culturally synergistic East meets West care. However, despite Hong Kong’s large population and interest in natural health options, the field faces several challenges, including competition with other professions, costs of education, and political uncertainty. Collaborating across professions, demonstrating value through outcomes, and adapting to cultural contexts may facilitate the integration of chiropractic care into Hong Kong’s healthcare system. Moreover, positioning chiropractic care within Hong Kong’s integrative East meets West healthcare movement may help sustain the practice regardless of political shifts. Through strategic partnerships and the maintenance of high standards balanced by cultural sensitivity, the chiropractic field in Hong Kong exemplifies the global spread of healthcare professions. Overall, chiropractic care in Hong Kong has had to navigate complex sociocultural and political circumstances and evolve into an integrated approach, reflecting the region’s pluralistic society. The study first discussed the development of the chiropractic profession in Hong Kong under the "one country, two systems" policy. It then examined the opportunities and challenges faced by the profession and concluded by delving into the future prospects of chiropractic in the region.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".