A qualitative study on the experiences of female firefighters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Firefighters are exposed to high physical and psychological occupational factors while providing an essential service to our communities. Female firefighters represent a minority group in this male dominated occupation. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively determine the impact of a male dominated, physically demanding occupation on women's work health and job satisfaction through the experiences of female firefighters. METHODS: A phenomenological approach was used to collect data through semi-structured, recorded interviews with female firefighters. The recorded interviews were transcribed into text and inductive thematic analysis was used to qualitatively analyze the transcripts. RESULTS: Review and analysis of the participant responses identified seven themes: physical demands/difficulties, gender related physiological differences, compensatory strategies, equipment mal-adaptation, earning respect, negative attitudes of male counterparts: impact on social inclusion and health behaviors, recognition of injury risk. CONCLUSION: Female firefighters are exposed to increased risk of injury due to the psychological and physical occupational stressors in firefighting. Implications of this research are provided and include recommendations for future research to target the physical and psychosocial aspects of firefighting.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".