Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to the first edition of the International Wound Journal for 2005. This year is important for the Journal following on from our launch successes of 2004. As seen from our year end review in the last edition we have published a significant number of papers covering many diverse clinical and geographical areas. This clearly shows the multidisciplinary and international nature of this Journal. The IWJ intends to be the pre-eminent international resource for clinically relevant aspects of work in this area. Perspectives from every corner of the globe help our wound healing fraternity learn from each other, gaining knowledge by sharing their experiences will enhance our ability to care for our patients. In our first edition of 2005, we provide articles covering such topics as quality of life in lymphodema, a review of diabetic foot care, and an approach to pressure ulcers caused by spascity, and two interesting product based papers. Firstly, one on Tielle presents a very different clinical approach particular to Germany and the second focuses on a comparison between active and inactive products. I am sure that you would appreciate the challenges for our Editorial board in the review of these papers. We would therefore be pleased to hear your comments regarding these approaches. These articles are from colleagues from around the world. Additionally we have included clinical cases which provide details of unusual clinical situations and novel approaches in their care. After the success of the WUWHS in Paris in 2004, this year individual society meetings will be taking place in many parts of the world. All of these meetings provide opportunities for new findings to be disseminated to an international audience through this Journal. In 2005, we have increased our editorial pages, in a bid to publish additional contributions. We therefore encourage you the reader to submit your research findings through [email protected]. We recognise language is a key communication tool and in 2005 you will see the translation of abstracts in additional languages to increase access to the Journal. Provide your comments, experience and advice on wound care to a global audience. In the last edition we carried a human interest story that took place at the world union meeting. The letter was included to inform all of us who were present at the WUWHS meeting of the happy outcome. Initiatives undertaken by the WUWHS continue. Some of us were fortunate to attend a focus meeting on re-imbursement in wound care, again in Paris in January 2005. Not surprisingly we were unable to find a simple solution to this problem but we were able to recognise many of the key issues involved in this topic. Luc Teot is developing a number of working groups to address these issues and hopefully progress will be made over forthcoming months. Also at this meeting discussions regarding the organisation of the next WUWHS meeting in Toronto in 2008 took place. A bit premature you may think but as it is only 3·5 years away much work has already been done by Professor Gary Sibbald, his colleagues in Canada and the guidance of the WUWHS board. A bigger and better 3rd WUWHS meeting is the desired aim and I am confident they will succeed. •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 JournalPO 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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".