MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118057103

The 23rd MBC Congress Report, Bucharest, Romania, 2025

2025· article· en· W7118057103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)MEDLINEPublic health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building on a long term cooperation with Romanian colleagues and the success of the 2022 Instructional Course entitled "Burns in the XXIst Century: Post-Pandemic Challenges", Bucharest was once again host for an important MBC scientific event.The 23rd Congress of the Euro-Mediterranean Council for Burns & Fire Disasters was held as a joint event with the Third National Interdisciplinary Romanian Burns Conference between 16 th and 18 th October 2025 at the Grand Hotel Bucharest, organized under the leadership of Prof. Dan Enescu and Dr. Raluca Tatar and their team.The event brought together clinicians, researchers, emergency responders, rehabilitation specialists and industry partners.The scientific program encompassed sessions on local burn treatment, comprehensive and surgical burn management, enzymatic debridement of burn wounds, scar management and reconstructive strategies, emergency and critical care of burn patients, rehabilitation, and the underlying pathophysiology of burn injury and healing.Speakers included a mix of local experts and invited international faculty: N. Depetris (Italy), president of the European Burns Association, B. Atiyeh (Lebanon) president of the MBC, J.R. Martnez Mndez (Spain), L. Rosenberg (Israel), I. Mataro (Italy), D. Baldassarre (Italy), G. Frunza (United Kingdom), E. Coeugniet (Canada).There were also some online interventions from J. Meirte (Belgium), and E. Charbonney (Canada).The event enjoyed excellent attendance, with many young colleagues present each day, and the highquality presentations delivered in all sessions stimulated interactive and highly instructive discussions appreciated by all participants.Delegates discussed persistent challenges common to the region: disparities in infrastructure between centres, access to innovative therapies and long-term rehabilitation resources, and the need to support prevention, multi-centre research and quality care improvement.It was an opportunity to reinforce regional and European cooperation for burn care and ensure practical knowledge transfer between specialists of different countries and generations.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicAcademic Publishing and Open AccessFrench-language works237,207