The academic legitimization of chiropractic: the case of CMCC and York University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that chiropractic has been accepted by more and more Canadians and Americans, it has yet to gain a foothold on a large American or Canadian university campus. In Canada, the primary chiropractic educational institution, the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), has attempted to affiliate with many universities including the University of Victoria, Brock University, the University of Waterloo, and, most recently, York University. The benefits of association with a university include eligibility for many research grants and academic legitimacy for the profession. While chiropractic has been denied university affiliation, other “subordinate” health occupations, such as nursing and midwifery, are currently taught in Ontario universities. The objective of the current research is to analyse the reasons for the failure of the CMCC to affiliate with York University. The major focus of the investigation is whether CMCC's lack of success can be viewed as a manifestation of the dominance of a medical model at York or whether arguments similar to those raised against CMCC are common in mergers in higher education. The first possibility is consistent with closure theory in general in which professions attempt to limit competition for scarce resources (in this case patients and status), and to the notions of medical dominance and medical sovereignty that are related to closure theory. The second explanation is consistent with “mutual-growth merger theory” in which it is postulated that mergers in higher education are successful when they are of benefit to both parties and a series of steps have been taken ranging from institutional self-assessment, that may involve conducting surveys of the university community, to post-merger consolidation and community building. Overall, it will be argued that the failure of the proposed affiliation is best explained by reference to closure theory, as manifested in medical dominance and medical sovereignty. Because of medical dominance and sovereignty. Because of medical dominance and sovereignty, even if steps consistent with mutual growth merger theory had been followed at York, it is questionable that affiliation would have been successful.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.081 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".