Bibliographic record
Abstract
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!
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".