SYSTEM OF PREVOCATIONAL REHABILITATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevocational rehabilitation is performed by members of the rehabilitation team to get a functional assessment of the psychosensomotor potential for employment purposes for people with disabilities (patients/clients). Standard methodologies were divided into basic, recommended and special methods for determining the psychosensomotor potential for empolyement. The functional basic methodologies include: Barthel Index, Instrumental routine daily activities test, Daily structure, Interest questionnaire, Self-assessment of pain, Sensory examination, Work curve by Emil Kraepelin and Richard Pauli, Jebsen-Taylor Test, PurduePegboard test - model 320 20, Jamar Dynamometer, Isernhagen Work System, Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment, Activity Matching Ability System, WHO DAS II. The recommended methodologies include examinations by experts that each facility is obliged to ensure, if necessary, for example, targeted and comprehensive assessment, spiroergometry, speech examination, psychological, psychiatric examination, hearing examination, visual examination. Special methodologies are according specialization of rehabilitation facilities. Our Department of Rehabilitation Medicine is focused on patients with brain damage, therefore we use Rivermead Behaviour Memory Test, Mini Mental State Examination , The Middlesex Elderly Assessment of Mental State, Prevocational assessment according to Jacobs, Canadian model of employment, General office test Functional, Independence Measure etc. The prevocational evaluation result is sending to Labour Offices and should not contain any confidential medical information. This report may contain recommendations for further education or retraining. Physician completes the discharge paper and he summarizes the evaluation of the rehabilitation team members. This report includes positive employment recommendations and work restrictions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".