Burn Rehabilitation Therapists Competency Tool—Version 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Burn Rehabilitation Therapist Competency Tool (BRTCT) was developed in 2011 to define core knowledge and skill sets that are central to the job performance of occupational and physical therapists working with burn patients during acute hospitalization and initial rehabilitation. It was the first national effort to provide standards that burn centers could use for the training and evaluation of a BRT performance. The American Burn Association Rehabilitation Committee recently expanded the tool to include long-term rehabilitation and outpatient care in order to more fully represent all of the stages of care in which patients with burn injury receive therapy. Thirty-six burn centers contributed competencies, 17 rehabilitation experts participated in a systematic Delphi questionnaire process, and eight representatives from seven additional burn centers validated the tool. The revised BRTCT, called the BRTCT-2, includes four new practice domains and 28 new competency statements. The expanded tool provides a common framework of standards for performance for occupational and physical therapists working with patients throughout the full spectrum of burn care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".