Subjective and objective analysis of three water pump systems carried by forest firefighters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mark 3 (M3) water power pump is an integral piece of wildfire fighting equipment. However, it is provided to fire stations without a carrying harness. The currently-used carrying harness is very uncomfortable, especially when carrying the pumps considerable distance in a forest to reach a water source. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to advise the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources on the selection of a new M3 load carriage system. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty Fire Rangers wore the three systems (Original, Prototype, and Modified) through a circuit of tasks representative of their working environment. METHODS: Subjective and objective approaches were combined to assess and rank the M3 carriage systems. Subjective visual analogue scale ratings were obtained for ease of loading/unloading, comfort, system stability, and overall performance. Tri-axial accelerometers were mounted on each pump and at the sternum of each participant to determine relative pump-carrier accelerations. RESULTS: Overall, the Prototype was ranked as the best system; it resulted in the lowest relative pump-carrier accelerations on 10 out of 15 objective measures, and also received a first place ranking on all subjective measures. CONCLUSION: It was recommended that the Prototype be implemented as the M3 carriage system for fire suppression teams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".