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
Over the past 30 years as caregivers, clinicians have been exposed to a plethora of new advanced wound dressings. The moist wound care revolution began in the 1970s with the introduction of film and hydrocolloid dressings, and today these are the traditional types of dressings of the advanced dressing categories. Wound-healing science has progressed significantly over the same period, as a result of intense clinical and scientific research around these product introductions. Today, the clinician understands moist wound healing, occlusion, cost effectiveness, wound bed preparation and MMP activity to name but a few of the many concepts in wound care that have flourished as a result of technology and product advancement. This review article presents a condensed history of dressing development over the past 30 years. However, in addition, such advancement is discussed in respect to its adoption in different parts of the world. The largest single markets of the world are generally the United States of America and Europe; as such, the development of both practice and technology generally begins there. Much has been written about these markets in previous review articles. For the purposes of this review, the development of wound care and the maturing of practice is discussed in respect to Canada, Japan and Australia representing smaller geographical areas where the development has been more recent but nonetheless significant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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