Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the early years of trench warfare, compound lower limb fractures caused by gunshot missiles prompted the -questioning of traditional splintage techniques and established evacuation methods. These prejudiced recovery and delayed surgery, often by many days, causing a high mortality rate especially for open femoral fractures. Importantly, battle weaponry was modified by differences in climate and terrain in Mesopotamia, Gallipoli, the Alps and the Northern European plain, to manifest differences in wound pathology. In Flanders, the static situation limited simple bullet wounds and launched a high percentage of jagged shell -fragment injuries complicated by tissue destruction, in-driven clothing and metal contaminated with mud, lethal bacteria and spores. From no-mans-land, soldiers with arm fractures scrambled back unaided, with tibial fractures they might hobble between two comrades, but with femoral fractures they were helpless unless stretcher bearers arrived. Often they did not, or only after a lull in fighting, by which time death from blood loss or exposure supervened. Even on a stretcher, poor fracture immobilization and long arduous carries added to shock and mortality. Remedies to these deficiencies and observations by Australasian, Austrian, British, Canadian, French, German, South African and American surgeons are noted. CONCLUSIONS: Trained to treat bullet wounds in open terrain, many military medical organizations were slow to adjust to the novel challenges associated with trench warfare. However, from 1917 well-trained stretcher bearers, efficient application of the Thomas splint, better control of haemorrhage and more rapid evacuation with motorized ambulances reduced deaths, amputation rates and long-term disability significantly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".