MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978301363 · doi:10.2486/indhealth.44.414

The Management of Heat Stress for the Firefighter: A Review of Work Conducted on Behalf of the Toronto Fire Service

2006· review· en· W1978301363 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Health · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratorWork (physics)FirefightingHeat stressEnvironmental scienceThermal comfortBunkerPersonal protective equipmentVentilation (architecture)MedicineMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialChemistryWaste managementMeteorologyPhysicsAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report provides a summary of research conducted through a grant provided by the Workplace Safety Insurance Board of Ontario. The research was divided into two phases; first, to define safe work limits for firefighters wearing their protective clothing and working in warm environments; and, the second, to examine strategies to reduce the thermal burden and extend the operational effectiveness of the firefighter. For the first phase, subjects wore their protective ensemble and carried their self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and performed very light, light, moderate or heavy work at 25 degrees C, 30 degrees C or 35 degrees C. Thermal and evaporative resistance coefficients were obtained from thermal manikin testing that allowed the human physiological responses to be compared with modeled data. Predicted continuous work times were then generated using a heat strain model that established limits for increases in body temperature to 38.0 degrees C, 38.5 degrees C and 39.0 degrees C. Three experiments were conducted for the second phase of the project. The first study revealed that replacing the duty uniform pants that are worn under the bunker pants with shorts reduced the thermal strain for activities that lasted longer than 60 min. The second study examined the importance of fluid replacement. The data revealed that fluid replacement equivalent to at least 65% of the sweat lost increased exposure time by 15% compared with no fluid replacement. The last experiment compared active and passive cooling. Both the use of a mister or forearm and hand submersion in cool water significantly increased exposure time compared with passive cooling that involved only removing most of the protective clothing. Forearm and hand submersion proved to be most effective and produced dramatic increases in exposure time that approximated 65% compared with the passive cooling procedure. When the condition of no fluid replacement and passive cooling was compared with fluid replacement and forearm and hand submersion, exposure times were effectively doubled with the latter condition. The heat stress wheel that was generated can be used by Commanders to determine safe work limits for their firefighters during activities that involve wearing their protective clothing and carrying their SCBA.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.204 · 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