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 OpenAlexaffabout
Tom M. McLellan, Glen A. Selkirk

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial HealthSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207