Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Wound Journal came of age at the recent World Union Congress 2008 in Toronto. As we celebrated our fifth Birthday the Journal’s profile was high and mighty recognising its significant International awareness and its growing importance as a valuable tool for the many wound care providers around the world. Starting with our Congress focused issue, a whopping edition with over 200 pages with some significantly important evidence based articles supporting many of the initiatives launched at the congress. Included in this edition were two supplements presenting further evidence based information to help with practice. One of these supplements provided consensus opinion regarding infection. This was the first time that the IWJ has been involved in the original publication of an International consensus statement. Like those we have published before we thank Medical Education Partnership and Smith & Nephew for the opportunity to be the first to publish this around the congress recognising its international importance. Is this a model for the future for the dissemination of these important consensus statements – we certainly hope so! The added benefit for all carers around the world is the listing of these important documents on Medline – making them more readily accessed and disseminated. In addition to our bumper congress edition we also provided the delegates of the congress with a ‘Birthday Gift’ which included the top 10 articles, which were accessed online from our first 4 years of publication. Copies of this reprint will be available at most major wound care conferences during 2008. To our readership and authors we say a huge thank you for helping the IWJ reach this level of importance and profile in such a short time frame. The congress also saw the creation and launch of a new tool to not only disseminate information/evidence more effectively, but also help the environment – that was An Electronic Poster Library, which the IWJ was only to happy to sponsor. This was a CD based tool which contained electronic copies of many of the posters presented at the Congress allowing the delegates to peruse them at their leisure and also to reduce both the cost and carbon foot print created with paper based handouts. As Editor-in-Chief of the IWJ I am proud of what we have achieved in such a short time frame and also delighted to see what we achieved during the World Union Congress in Toronto. This event saw a double celebration being our fifth Birthday and the third Congress. The IWJ however would not have got where it is today if it were not for our readership, authors, Editorial Executives and Board and also our Strategic Partners. So to all of these individuals I say a huge thank you and look forward to working with them in taking the Journal from strength to strength. The success of the IWJ is indeed a shared success and the partnership will continue as we move forward.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".