Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have been invited by the Editors of the International Wound Journal to provide an editorial in preparation for Congress 2008. As the Chair and Co-Chairs of the congress we are delighted that the IWJ chose to add an additional copy of the journal in support of the many initiatives of the congress. We are also pleased that the cover of the Journal was changed to red, the conference colour, to recognize the importance of our Congress. Firstly let us provide a warm welcome to all readers who will shortly be in Toronto. And to all of you unable to attend – we will miss you! Much activity has taken place in the past 4 years and in particular the past few months to get prepared for the congress. To all involved we thank you and look forward to an exciting event, meeting old friends and a well deserved holiday post congress. The third meeting of the World Union of Wound Healing Societies is truly a partnership between the University of Toronto, Women’s College Hospital, wound care associations and wound care publishers. Industry has contributed significantly through unrestricted educational grants. As individuals, we all participate in the creation and dissemination of wound care knowledge. We all share the common problem of preventing and treating wounds. Collaboratively, we can provide a unified voice for the development of wound care as a clinical multi-professional specialty. That is ‘One Problem – One Voice’. Congress 2008 provides a forum for the dissemination of evidence informed practice on a global basis. Through the efforts of many of the participating organizations the World Union has initiated the collection, review and dissemination of the evidence base for wound care on an international basis. The primary goal of Congress 2008 and the World Union of Wound Healing Societies is to present the wound care evidence base, provide expert knowledge and transfer the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for improved patient outcomes. Included will be the alignment of evidence-based medicine to “Evidence Informed Transdisciplinary Practice” that fits the clinical needs of practitioners caring for persons with wounds. Treating acute and chronic wounds is an ongoing challenge for health care professionals in all parts of the world. Social, economic and technological differences, however, can create a vast divide in global approaches to wound care. Congress 2008 embraces the multicultural, multidisciplinary nature of its audience and provides an opportunity not only to network but also to work together for the benefit of all wound healers on a global basis. This will be accomplished through a preconference day, four plenary presentations, and 10 concurrent streams with 100 educational sessions, a summary of which is presented in this Congress edition. For the last three years, we have been working on a web-based initiative to link wound care evidence and expert knowledge. The website will be presented in a ‘just in time’ format for improved patient care. The evidence summaries created will also be presented to each delegate on Sunday in the form of a CD. They will also be freely accessible on the website (WoundPedia). This is not a one-time effort, but a continued collaboration of the World Union and our partners. Under the stewardship of Professor R. Gary Sibbald, during his tenure as President, the initiative will be a legacy of the WUWHS. This is not the end, merely the beginning! As a global community of wound care specialists, we need to share our insights, data, and awareness of common wound care concerns and solutions. When we do this, we can build new initiatives to advance wound care practices and to improve patient outcomes globally. Your experience matters, so we are counting on your active participation. Don’t be shy - we all have much to contribute. Your experience is our experience! It can make a difference in the lives of persons with wounds somewhere in the world.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".