Sur la scène des consultations en chiropraxie : une lecture de la relation de soin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The caregiver-patient relationship has been the subject of numerous studies in the field of medicine, but has received little attention in the context of chiropractic care, particularly in France. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: This ethnographic and sociological study aims to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of the chiropractic relationship in chiropractic care through the observation of consultations followed by interviews with both patients and caregivers. These observations were carried out in the Franco-European Chiropractic Institute’s two outpatient clinics and in three private practices. RESULTS: The data were collected between October 2022 and March 2023. Most of the patients treated their health as an asset to be preserved or even improved, and had a good knowledge of their body as a tool for work and/or sports performance. They turned to chiropractic care to find relief from their pain and a form of care combining technical and interpersonal skills. Chiropractic care is based on manual therapy, combined with a dimension of self-management by the patient. Follow-up of the exercises and advice given by chiropractors varies greatly from patient to patient, from diligent application to non-application, and with everything in between. CONCLUSION: Trust is the foundation of all care, and even more so in manual therapy, because of the way the hands act on the body. To establish a working alliance with the patient, the chiropractor has to adapt his or her professional ethos and accept compromises regarding the treatment plan envisaged. Cooperation between a patient and a chiropractor is based on trust, the negotiation of objectives, and the division of tasks between the two parties.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".