Bibliographic record
Abstract
April brought about the North American launch of the International Wound Journal at the Symposium of Advanced Wound Care in Orlando. The interest was significant, and along with our Strategic Partners, we ‘stole the show’. Now, it's the World's turn with our official global launch at the World Union Congress in Paris. An international Journal for an international Event! July will prove to be a significant month for wound healing. Not only do we have the second edition of the International Wound Journal (IWJ) but we also have the second Wound Congress of the World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) — a big month indeed! We hope you found the first edition of the IWJ both enlightening and stimulating. The high standard of our first edition is echoed in the second. Indeed, it is with great privilege that we have been recognised by the WUWHS as a preferred Journal. Watch out for our third edition, which will carry our first supplement, presenting the abstracts of the Congress. Through our Strategic Partners we are gaining the international exposure required to become an important research and clinical resource. Indeed as you read this edition it may have been given to you by one of our Strategic Partners. These important companies have recognised the value of an international, peer-reviewed, quality journal as a resource, both for you as an individual interested in wound care and to industry as a provider of the products and services used in the treatment of wounds. A common message for a common customer. Each of us benefiting from the expertise and experience of the other. Subscriptions are growing and submissions are flowing into our editorial office. After two editions, we are on the map to becoming recognised as an important resource in the world of wound care. Soon, we will have to consider increasing our frequency to meet the expectations of those submitting articles to our Journal. The high number and quality of submissions, in conjunction with our desire to have a reasonable submission to publication turnaround time, may necessitate such an increase even at this early stage of our development. It is our intention to ensure a rapid publication of those articles accepted by the IWJ, and we will make all efforts to ensure this happens. •EuropeSuzie Calne, UK Dr Robertto Cassino, Italy Dr George Cherry, UK Dr Mike Clark, UK Dr Sebastian Debus, Germany Dr Mieke Flour, Belgium Prof. Peter Franks, UK Prof. Finn Gottrup, Denmark David Gray, UK Dr Eva-Lisa Heinrichs, UK Dr Dirk Hollander, Germany Prof. David Leaper, UK Dr Mario Marazzi, Italy Dr Sylvie Meaume, France Prof. Hugo Partsch, Austria Dr Elaine Pina, Portugal Dr Elia Ricci, Italy Cath Vowden, UK Dr Peter Vowden, UK •North AmericaDr Adrian Barbul, USA Dr Diane Cooper, USA Dr Jeff Davidson, USA Dr William Ennis, USA Dr Vincent Falanga, USA Evonne Fowler, USA Dr Pamela Houghton, Canada Dr David Keast, Canada Dr Diane Krasner, USA Dr Courtney Lyder, USA Dr Joe McCulloch, USA Yvette Moulin, Canada Nancy Parslow, Canada Dr George Rodeheaver, USA •AustralasiaDr Ian Darby, Australia Prof. Xiabong Fu, China Dr Satsue Hagisawa, Japan Dr Kazuo Kishi, Japan •Rest of WorldProf. Zulifiqarali Abbas, Tanzania Prof. Bishara Atiyeh, Lebanon Dr Celesttini Celebi, Turkey Dr Luis Fernando Lira, Mexico Dr Jose Contreras Ruiz, Mexico Prof. Kent Jö nsson, Zimbabwe Dr Stephan Landis, Arab Emirates Dr Manoj Pandey, India Prof. Hermelinda Pedrosa, Brazil Dr Ricardo Roa, Chile Prof. Vijay Shukla, India Dr Mark Tang, Singapore
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) | 0.001 | 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".