Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slowly but surely governments around the world are taking an interest in wounds and the burden they place on our health care systems 1. This may be driven by changing patterns of disease, for example, diabetes or by the impact of individuals, societies and journals such as this having a focus on the subject. Even if this is driven by ‘budget desperation’ we as the wound community need to capture and drive this interest and create a momentum for change 2. Many of our national associations have existed for several decades and some are using 2014 as a year for change (e.g. AWMA considering Wounds Australia and CAWC changing to Wounds Canada). Many companies in 2013 began to consolidate [e.g. Healthpoint & Smith & Nephew 3; KCI and Systagenix 4]. There are also a number of new companies working in the field of wound healing. So the change has begun and some would suggest that this is probably a very necessary step in the evolution of our clinical specialty 5, 6. In the past few years, national approaches to the research of and delivery of advanced wound care practices have lead to the creation of centres of excellence [e.g. Australian CRC 7, Welsh Wound Innovation Initiative 8 and Bradford Wound Prevention & Treatment HTC in England 9]. All of the building blocks are falling into place and we feel that 2014 surely could be the ‘Year of the Wound’. But as a community let's not be passive about this potential opportunity! We need to continue to build momentum, exploit the interest of governments and politicians in addition to engaging with even wider professional groups and encouraging patient empowerment for the benefit of all individuals who have wounds. Please don't see this as a call to action as the wound care community is always energised around the needs of those suffering from wounds but rather look at this as a reminder to push that little bit harder on a door that seems to be a little bit more open in current times. Ensure you capture the moment while you can but do so with energy and more importantly an open mind. Carpe Deum.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".