MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Personal Perspective

2006· article· en· W2073932791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas Queen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PreparednessMedicineFace (sociological concept)Everyday lifeNormalityScale (ratio)Medical emergencyPublic relationsPsychiatryManagementLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As I prepare this editorial, I am on vacation in Pukhet, Thailand. For most of us, the Tsunami is a passing memory, but for the Thai people, it remains very much in the forefront of their everyday living. Rebuilding has started, and with time, the many devastating wounds caused by the Tsunami will heal, and life will return to normal. However, for some normality will never return. For health care professionals, such emergencies are rather poignant, in that we recognise some of the pain and suffering that these people are experiencing, as the severe trauma and wounding suffered by so many have a familiar tone. In memory of the many hundreds of thousands, who lost their life in the Tsunami, I dedicate this editorial. Being here at this time brings to mind ‘preparedness’ both from a medical emergency perspective and a psychological perspective. Many facilities have ‘disaster planning’, but how many would or could have been prepared for the vast numbers of both dead and injured that the Tsunami created in such a short space of time. What becomes a priority? What issues become critical? How do we get help to those who need it the most on a timely basis? As caregivers, what dangers do we face? These are all questions that some of us face in our day-to-day lives on a much smaller scale. We generally work best in teams, but how could or would we have coped with a disaster on the scale of the Tsunami — probably as best we could! Reflecting on the pain and suffering of these individuals brings focus to the trauma faced by many of those persons suffering from a debilitating chronic wound. This is not in any way reducing the scale of the Tsunami or claiming equivalence in scale but rather that society appears to empathise more with suffering on a grand scale rather than the challenges of individual patient's suffering. It also should remind us that we need to remember the patient as a whole rather than a singular focus on the wound itself. The patient is much more than a wound with more complex situations or medical conditions which has an overriding impact on the wound and its healing. As 2006 begins, we enter the latter half of the first decade of the 21st Century, what can we expect in the wound care environment? Scanning the research arenas, one can predict that we will probably see the more conclusive emergence of more active therapies, in particular, those which are cell-based, with more compelling evidence that is both performance and cost-effectiveness related. It is highly probable that we may also see the emergence of wound diagnostics. These are likely to be more diagnostic aids, pointing us in the right direction, rather than definitive diagnostics. In the wound care arena, we have long been aware of the importance of correct and effective diagnosis. With the emergence of more complex products, we will be increasingly required to use these products appropriately to maximise their impact. As a better understanding of the wound environment becomes available, our ability to tailor our approach and better treat the patient as a whole increases. These are exciting times and with the ability to provide ‘point-of-care’ diagnosis, albeit more indicative than definitive, will improve our ability to treat our patients and their wounds. Prof. Zulifiqarali Abbas, Tanzania Prof. Bishara Atiyeh, Lebanon Dr Adrian Barbul, USA Suzie Calne, UK Dr Robertto Cassino, Italy Dr Celalettin Çelebi, Turkey Dr George Cherry, UK Dr Mike Clark, UK Dr Diane Cooper, USA Dr Ian Darby, Australia Dr Jeff Davidson, USA Dr Sebastian Debus, Germany Dr William Ennis, USA Dr Vincent Falanga, USA Dr Mieke Flour, Belgium Evonne Fowler, USA Prof. Peter Franks, UK Prof. Xiabong Fu, China Prof. Finn Gottrup, Denmark David Gray, UK Dr Satsue Hagisawa, Japan Dr Eva-Lisa Heinrichs, UK Dr Dirk Hollander, Germany Dr Joon Pio Hong, Korea Dr Pamela Houghton, Canada Prof. Kent Jönsson, Zimbabwe Dr David Keast, Canada Dr Kazuo Kishi, Japan Dr Diane Krasner, USA Dr Stephan Landis, Arab Emirates Prof. David Leaper, UK Dr Luis Fernando Lira, Mexico Dr Courtney Lyder, USA Dr Mario Marazzi, Italy Dr Sylvie Meaume, France Dr Joe McCulloch, USA Yvette Moulin, Canada Dr Manoj Pandey, India Nancy Parslow, Canada Prof. Hugo Partsch, Austria Prof. Hermelinda Pedrosa, Brazil Dr Elaine Pina, Portugal Dr Elia Ricci, Italy Dr Ricardo Roa, Chile Dr George Rodeheaver, USA Dr Jose Contreras Ruiz, Mexico Prof. Vijay Shukla, India Dr Mark Tang, Singapore Cath Vowden, UK Dr Peter Vowden, UK

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207