Factors in Adoption of a Fire Department Wellness Program
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate determinants of fire departments' wellness program adoption. METHODS: The Promoting Healthy Lifestyles: Alternative Models' Effects fire service wellness program was offered for free to all medium-sized fire departments in Oregon and Washington. An invitation to participate was mailed to key fire department decision makers (chief, union president, and wellness officer). These key decision makers from 12 sites that adopted the program and 24 matched nonadopting sites were interviewed and results were analyzed to define adoption determinants. RESULTS: Three adoption requirements were identified: (1) mailer connection, (2) local firefighter wellness champion, and (3) willing fire chief, whereas a fourth set of organizational factors had little or no impact on adoption including previous and ongoing wellness activities, financial pressures, and resistance to change. CONCLUSIONS: Findings identified determinants of medium-sized fire service wellness program adoption.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it