Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Autumn shows us how beautiful change can be" - Unknown In this second issue of our newly branded, peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence (CJWOC), we continue to change and grow our publication in response to your feedback requesting more evidence to support the work within our tri-specialty. Immerse yourself in evidence synthesis as you read the scoping review and systematic review within the pages of this issue. The scoping review authored by Mosa, Jilek, Su, Ketchmark, Ammar, and Kennedy aims to map out and explore the existing literature on pressure injury wound healing with vitamin C supplementation, identifying gaps and key concepts. Ostomy care is known by many as the foundation of our specialty. It is exciting for us to see researchers and authors delve further into this aspect of our tri-specialty in order to better under-stand the available evidence and gaps that need addressing. The must-read article authored by Hutton, Prins, Yuan, Solitano, Radford, Vuyyuru, Abushamma, Rieder, and Jairath on behalf of the EndO-trial Consortium is a systematic review that comprehensively identifies, evaluates and synthesizes relevant studies and critically appraises the quality of nursing guidelines for ostomy care. Our first Guest Editorial by John Gregory, gives us a snapshot of Nurses Specialized in Wound, Ostomy and Continence Canada (NSWOCC) 44 th Annual Conference. This editorial emphasizes the importance of extending our focus beyond the traditional study of etiologies, products, and technologies within our tri-specialty. Aligning with the conference planners’ objectives, it encourages us to critically examine our own biases and to strive for the delivery of truly individualized and holistic patient care. We challenge each and every one of our NSWOC and SWAN colleagues and health care partners to contribute to the change and growth to our association’s official publication, CJWOC. Please contact us with your publication proposals; your insights and contributions are valued.
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 | 0.018 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.038 |
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".