MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752161730 · doi:10.1097/won.0000000000000361

WOCN Society Position Paper

2017· article· en· W2752161730 on OpenAlex
Shawneen Schmitt, Marti K. Andries, Patti M. Ashmore, Glenda Brunette, Kathleen Judge, Phyllis A. Bonham

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Position statementExpert opinionPosition paperMedicineStatement (logic)Public relationsPolitical scienceIntensive care medicineBusinessLawFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of whether pressure injuries are avoidable or preventable has been and continues to be an issue of great debate and discussion for many years, and it has significant legal and regulatory implications related to prevention of wounds due to pressure. The following position paper outlines the position of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN) on avoidable versus unavoidable pressure injuries. It includes the following information: statement of position, purpose/rationale for the position, definitions of avoidable versus unavoidable pressure injuries, alternative definitions, historical overview, supportive statements from expert opinion and research in the literature, and recommendations for research.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.381 · 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