Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Well what can I say! Toronto was an amazing meeting – one of the best I have ever attended. Well I would say that as I was on the organizing committee. But seriously it was one of the best meetings I have attended in a long time and in true World Union tradition raised the bar over the previous meeting in Paris in 2004. The meeting attracted over 3500 delegates from 71 countries around the world and had one of the largest exhibitions ever seen in wound care. With a faculty of around 200 key opinion leaders; 28 lifetime achievement awardees and keynote speakers of great stature the meeting was undoubtedly a huge success. The venue for Congress 2012 was chosen and many congratulations to Japan on winning the bid for the next congress. On a personal note I wish them luck and endurance in their planning efforts over the next 4 years – trust me they will need it. The theme of congress 2008 was evidence and on that topic the Congress delivered. With seven International Consensus Statements being launched at the meeting, covering a diversity of topics and the launch of WoundPedia (www.woundpedia.com) a web-based evidence initiative the goals and objectives of the congress were exceeded. Evidence is evidence but it’s not useful till it influences practice. What was evident from Toronto was that the World Union is working hard to both deliver a global perspective to our wound care evidence base but also to make it applicable to practice. That is the delivery of tools and materials to facilitate Evidence Informed Practice. As previously discussed in other editorials and articles around the congress this is not all talk but rather an ongoing action. The World Union intends to maintain the momentum around this important initiative. The Congress in Toronto was merely the beginning. The delivery of several consensus statements and other evidence based tools, both during and after Toronto will ensure that an evidence based approach to wound care is tailored and designed to suit our specific needs. As we all know wound care is not all about the hole in the patient but rather the whole of the patient. The same applies to our evidence based approach it’s not all about the evidence but rather the application of the evidence to the practice. So to all of the delegates from Congress 2008 your next task post congress is the implementation of the evidence and experience gathered in Toronto. To all others much of the information provided at the Congress is available on the web through the World Union Website (www.wuwhs.org) and Woundpedia. So why the Post Toronto Blues? Most congress organisers will know! The organisation of the meeting was a 4 year process and now it’s over, this leaves a gap in my life! While I will miss the interaction with my colleagues. I will not miss the intensity of the workload! So perhaps in reality I am not feeling so blue!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,762 | 0,502 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».