MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Importance of Lymphatic Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (Omt) in The Practice and Training of Osteopaths in Quu00E9Bec : a Qualitative Research Study

2017· other· en· W6889773627 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteopathyOsteopathic medicine in the United StatesManual therapyQualitative researchThematic analysisLymphatic system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The professionalization of osteopathy is imminent in Quebec and it is therefore important to define the major branches of osteopathy and to outline new fields of research. The lymphatic system is one of these important areas, but it has been little explored in practice, training, and research. Objective Explore the osteopathic conception of the lymphatic system in practice and in training, from the perspective of osteopaths practicing and teaching in Quebec. Methods Three teachers and four osteopaths were recruited using a convenience sampling. Data was collected through socio-demographic questionnaires; text books; pedagogical materials; school curriculum descriptions; audio-recorded interviews transcriptions; and a validation group interview using a constructivist design. Thematic analysis was used for individual interviews until saturation, and analysed data was submitted to all participants allowing for co-construction. Results The participants described the lymphatic system using the osteopathic principles of globalism, autoregulation, structure and function interrelations, and the importance of free fluid circulation. They defined the system as omnipresent and inseparable from osteopathic philosophy. The majority of participants admitted they do not treat lymphatics in their practice. Paradoxically, they also stated that every osteopathic technique can have a lymphatic impact. Osteopathic training on lymphatics is variable among programs and, most of the time, is nonexistent. All participants stated that the lymphatic system is as important as every other body system in osteopathy but acknowledged that it is overlooked. The participants pointed out the distinction between lymphatic OMT and other manual therapies. The distinctive aspects are the adaptation of the treatment method to the client using a specific evaluation; multiple techniques addressing the lymphatics directly; the osteopathu2019s palpation skill; and osteopathic philosophy. Conclusion There was consensus about the gap between the primary importance given to lymphatics in osteopathic philosophy and the little place designated to it in practice and training.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0190.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.305
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it