World Federation of Critical Care Nurses Council Meeting, August 2005, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the 9th World Federation of Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, the Argentinian Critical Care nursing association played host to the 4th WFCCN Council meeting.Associate Professor Ged Williams (Australia), out-going chair of the Federation, proclaimed that this international meeting was one of the most important critical care events ever; "a significant landmark" for the critical care nursing community.The Council was attended by representatives from 18 countries, including South and North America (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela), the European Federation (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Slovenia, and United Kingdom), the Asia Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Korea, New Zealand and the Philippines) and South Africa.Currently the WFCCN comprises 26 member organisations and further commitment has been expressed by no less than five more countries to join the Federation in the near future.The Council of Representatives also heard that South Arabian nurses were working together to develop a new group.They are planning to organise a conference and link with WFCCN once they have become more established. Key pointsThe meeting was lively and generated much discussion around three main areas: the election of new Council positions, formation of a South American Federation of Critical Care Associations, and the Manila conference in 2006.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".