A comparison of two physical ability tests for firefighters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoke diving is physically demanding, and firefighters must therefore meet certain minimum physical requirements. The aim of this study was to compare the physiological demands of two fire fitness tests: a test of 8-min treadmill walking approved by the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority (NLIA) (a laboratory test) and a Canadian test consisting of 10 firefighting specific tasks carried out in sequence (an applied field test). If the Canadian field test is as physically demanding as the NLIA-approved laboratory test, it may be suitable for testing Norwegian firefighters. Twenty-two male professional firefighters were tested on separate days. In both tests, the subjects wore a complete firefighting outfit including a breathing apparatus. The test durations were 8 min (NLIA test) versus approximately 6 min (Canadian test). Neither the peak O₂ uptake (VO₂) of approximately 45 ml kg⁻¹ min⁻¹ nor the blood lactate concentration (BLC) at test termination ( ≈ 9 mmol L⁻¹) differed between the two tests. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE(CR-10)) was lower for the Canadian test than for the Norwegian test (5.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.0 ± 2.0, respectively), and the exercise time at a high VO₂ was also shorter. In conclusion, the Canadian test appeared to be almost as physically demanding as the NLIA-approved test, having equal peak VO₂ and BLC, but shorter time at a high VO₂ and shorter duration. It might thus be a suitable alternative to the NLIA test with some modifications. The advantage of the Canadian field test is the inclusion of specific firefighting-like tasks that are not part of the NLIA test. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: The physiological load from two firefighter fitness tests was compared. The demands were found to be similar, but the field test was of a shorter duration. With some modifications, the field test may be sufficiently demanding to be used as a fire fitness test for smoke divers in Norway.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".