Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we enter 2018 I reflect on how recent the start of the New Millennium seems. How we worried about computer crashes and utter devastation of the world at the dawn of the new millennium and yet as it becomes 2018, all of these stories of the late 1999's, ended up being incorrect or even “fake news.” A lot has certainly changed in our world in those 18 years. That's the world in general, not necessarily the World of wound healing. In reality, we should ask ourselves have we made as much progress as we should. As mentioned in previous editorials isn't it over 55 years since George Winters discovery that moist wound healing environments produced faster healing than allowing a wound to dry and form a scab. When compared with other clinical areas, we have to ask have we made similar progress to them and if not why? The interest in this subject continues to increase with the number of articles submitted to the IWJ now amounting to almost 600 papers and the standard of the work is improving rapidly. The numbers of meeting and products focused on wound healing continue to increase yet we still have not seen a seed change in the way which care is provided to patients with the creation of interdisciplinary teams and appropriate use of dressing, device, drugs, surgery and biological agents to treat patients with wounds. Is it a lack of interest in the clinicians or health service planners that is the major factor or is it the lack of acceptance that all of us have a responsibility to look critically at what and how we provide care to patients with wounds. The need for a considered and professional view on treating patients is urgent if we are to prevent the waste of resources and patients suffering needlessly. As I write this editorial, I am on my vacation in Thailand and am reminded what a beautiful country it is with such gentle and beautiful people. Ironically, the temperature here is the exact same temperature as my home in Toronto. The only difference being one is minus and the other positive. I will leave you the reader to guess which is which. How our worlds differ across our globe! They differ in many aspects, including our wound care practices, which is another challenge for us. One of my first editorials written from vacation was indeed from Thailand, where they had the first anniversary memorial for those lost in the Tsunami. That was some 14 years ago. As I get older, time seems to pass more quickly and that is perhaps something we need to bear in mind when our patients, many of them elderly, seem impatient in wanting professional wound care services provided to them. For some of us (myself included) we are approaching the age where our aging bodies remind us of the frailty of human life. I look in the mirror when shaving and do not recognise the aging man looking back. In my head I am still that crazy 20 something that went to Cap for University and partied till the early hours. This latest New Year celebration for me lasted as long as the fireworks. And that was a struggle. Perhaps as we age we become more sympathetic caregivers not because of what we see others experiencing but more what we experience ourselves. So to the young caregivers starting out in the wound care field—think on!! It will be you one day at the end of the care provided. Making the care for your patients better today, makes it better for you in the future. If each of us tries to make the world a better place today it will be a better world when we get there! (My New Year's resolution for 2018.) We may ask, especially if English is not your first language, what I mean by the words in this resolution. Simply put, changing the environment for those requiring your help today, better prepares the world for the help when you may need it yourself. Please accept the challenge and improve the standards of care you offer to patients with wounds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".