Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data generated through systematic investigation, carried out on the evaluation of phyto-extracts on wound healing research during the last 20 years have been compiled. About 450 plant species having wound healing properties have been identified. The present knowledge of the wound healing process comprise coagulation, inflammation, proliferation, formation and accumulation of fibrous tissues, collagen deposition, epithelialization, contraction of wound with formation of granulation tissues, remodeling and maturation. The constituents of the plant extracts modulate one or more of the above stages. It was the endeavor to identify the active constituents responsible for antimicrobial activity, free radical scavenging properties, stimulators of enhanced collagen production and/or angiogenesis promoters with identification of lead scaffold chemical structures. Multiple phytochemicals concentrated and blended in optimal concentrations, are expected to be available in future years to carry out multi-tasking efforts in wound healing as more knowledge about the properties of the key constituents are unveiled.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it