A qualitative study investigating research priorities and investigative capacity in sports-focused chiropractic research, part 2: exploring the challenges and opportunities for research capacity development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the challenges and opportunities for research capacity development in the sports chiropractic field. Methods: A qualitative description study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 20 sports chiropractic researchers from eight countries and focus group interviews with 12 sports chiropractic leaders from Canada. Results: Challenges and opportunities for research capacity development were identified within four main themes - 1) affiliations and collaborations, 2) human resources, 3) financial resources, and 4) operational resources. Profession-specific challenges included being "siloed", a lack of knowledge of the chiropractic profession, and its negative perception. Profession-specific opportunities included creating a sports chiropractic research chair/centre and engaging sports chiropractors in practice- and field-based research networks. Conclusions: These results can inform strategies to advance research capacity development for the sports chiropractic field and develop context-specific indicators for ongoing research capacity assessment.
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 | 0.064 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".