Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following on from the success of our first edition, we see the publication of our second. Again we present articles from a diverse geographical and specialty perspective. A balance between science, education and clinical practice continues. From subject matter dealing with diabetic foot infections to the scientific study of reepithelialisation – we provide a truly international flavour. Our authorship spans the globe providing a unique insight to our readership. Our subject matter is appropriate and applicable, at some level, for our diverse readership. Indeed an article in our first edition and my own editorial stimulated two Canadian colleagues to provide their perspectives on infected wounds – the beginning of an international dialogue on an important clinical issue. In this edition we publish a review of topical negative pressure therapy (TNP), presenting information regarding its development, proliferation and applicability. This is particularly important in view of the current levels of interest in this subject. A similar review of the medical and surgical management of diabetic foot infections provides clinically applicable approaches to care, again of clinical importance in view of the number of patients seen globally with this challenging clinical problem. On the research front we present articles covering compression and reepithelialisation which provide important information regarding key elements with respect to wound healing. The relevance of these papers is in both challenging the mode of action of compression bandages and presenting research in an often neglected aspect of the healing process. Our interesting, unusual clinical challenges weild two interesting cases from our colleagues in India. These cases are not only unusual but also bring a perspective from a different clinical arena with a distinct surgical flavour. As discussed in our first edition, it is our intent to grow our Editorial Advisory Board to ensure diversity from both geography and clinical specialty. You will note that for our second edition we have some additional members increasing our reach in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. In keeping with the internationalisation of wound care, via the World Union Congress in Paris, we are privileged to have the unique situation of a double second: the second World Union Congress and the launch of the second edition of the International Wound Journal. Our desire to become the pre-eminent resource for wound care providers is fast becoming a reality. Please consider submitting articles and tell your friends and colleagues about this new journal if you feel it is providing you with useful information. If you are attending the World Union meeting in Paris, please come and talk to me and let me know your views regarding the International Wound Journal. •Editor-in-ChiefProf. Keith Harding •EditorDr Douglas Queen •StatisticianProf. Patricia Price •Editorial ExecutivesProf. David Armstrong Dr Paul Banwell Dr Kyoichi Matsuzaki Prof. Christine Moffatt Heather Orsted Prof. Marco Romanelli Prof. Hiromi Sanada Prof. Gregory Schultz Prof. Gary Sibbald Prof. Mike Stacey Geoff Sussman Dr Luc Téot •Editorial OfficeInternational Wound Journal PO Box 2394 Cardiff CF23 9WQ UK •Editorial AssistantSue Harding •Production EditorJennifer Dick
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 | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.041 |
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".