MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255910663 · doi:10.1111/iwj.12476

News and views

2015· article· en· W4255910663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

News and views CONVATECMedical products and technologies company ConvaTec has launched its Aquacel Foam dressing in a range of new rectangular sizes, which can be used in a wider variety of anatomical wound care applications.Featuring contact layer, the Aquacel Foam dressing is suitable for exuding acute, chronic and traumatic wounds, including dermabrasions and surgical incisions.The new sizes of the Aquacel dressing comprise 8 cm × 13 cm (3 × 5), 10 cm × 20 cm (4 × 8), 10 cm × 25 cm (4 × 10) and 10 cm × 30 cm (4 × 12).These new sizes have been designed to use the dressing on a variety of positions, including the head and neck, shoulder, lower leg and wrist, as well as the lower abdomen for appendectomies, cesarean sections and midline incisions.Wound Therapeutics general manager Joe Rolley said: 'Adding these sizes to the Aquacel Foam portfolio is in direct response to customer and patient needs.The launch of Aquacel Foam dressing was the most successful in ConvaTec's history because no one else provides the comfort of a foam dressing with the properties of Hydrofiber Technology to manage wounds'.Part of the full portfolio of Aquacel Foam dressings, the new rectangular sizes are available with a silicone adhesive border only and non-adhesive options are not currently available.Initially, the company will market the new sizes in the UK, France, the Nordic countries, Canada, Bulgaria, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand and the US.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalFrench-language works237,207