Assessing the relative perspective of the regulation of kinesiologists among other health professionals / by Kerry Braniff.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinesiology as a profession is in a state of transition in the Province of Ontario, formerly a self governed profession it has recently been designated a regulated profession under the Regulated Health Professions Act (1991). The acceptance and utilization of kinesiology by stakeholder communities is essential to the future viability of the profession. An 18 question computer generated survey was used to collect information to identify perceptions about kinesiology within the existing health care sector. A SWOT \n(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) framework was used to analyze the data. The data indicated that as a regulated profession kinesiology provides a unique expertise adding to client and patient care and is a needed partner within the multidisciplinary health environment. The data also indicated that, despite the need for the profession to clearly define, delineate, and promote its scope of practice to professionals and the public, there are increased opportunities that exist within the health \ncare sector, particularly in chronic disease prevention. The profession is not considered a threat by existing key stakeholders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".