A comparative analysis of six international chiropractic regulatory systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The function and roles of legislation primarily provide a protective function for the public by preserving their fundamental rights. Legislation also maintains the legitimacy of the professions and aids in defining the scope of practice within the profession. Legislation may however affect the international migration of practitioners, in addition to geographical proximity, shared language, customs and educational curricula as well as historical links. There is no published literature that compares chiropractic legislation in regulated countries, thus no understanding of where possible similarities and differences exist and the impact they may have on the migration of chiropractors Objective: The main objective of the study is to aid in increasing the understanding of the values, structures and operations of various international chiropractic regulatory systems with the goal of identifying the similarities and differences (viz. compare) between these chiropractic regulatory systems. Method: Six countries with chiropractic Legislation were selected using purposive sampling based on the number of practicing chiropractors. The USA was divided into states with the top three selected according to practicing chiropractors, Canada was divided and the top province selected based on practicing chiropractors. Information and data was obtained via desk based research and additional information was gathered by the researcher from the registrar of the respective regulatory bodies. Results: A variety of factors were identified that may either aid in or hinder the mobility of chiropractors across jurisdictions. By analysing the legislative documents, it was found that regulatory bodies remain similar in content and structure however significant differences were also found. Conclusion: In conclusion, regulatory bodies and their governing documents and procedures remain similar in content and structure. However the study revealed differences factors that could possibly affect the mobility of chiropractors across jurisdictions. These areas identified included: Educational standards and processes, competency maintenance, registration requirements (local and foreign), disciplinary procedure and processes and constraints placed by supranational bodies.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".