PHYSIOLOGICAL COSTS OF FIRE FIGHTER OCCUPATIONAL FITNESS TESTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the physiological costs associated with Fire Fighter occupational fitness tests. Metabolic and heart rate responses of incumbent Fire Fighters were recorded while they performed occupational fitness tests designed to simulate the challenges of Fire Fighting using an established series of isolated component tests and during a circuit of typical Fire Fighting procedures (known as the Combat Challenge). The first cohort included 15 incumbent Fire Fighters whose results on the isolated component tests were compared to those from our candidate database (N = 127). Laboratory treadmill testing was performed (Vmax Sensormedics) to establish VO2max and HRmax. Field testing was conducted using the COSMED portable VO2 system. Participants wore a 40 pound weighted vest and 4 pound ankle weights during the component tests and wore NFPA approved jacket, pants, boots, gloves, helmet and SCOTT air pack during the circuit/Combat Challenge test. During the Combat Challenge, incumbents were instructed to work at a pace that they felt best represented the pace required at a real fire although total time to complete each test was recorded. Following the tests, the incumbents were asked to complete a short questionnaire rating their perception of the tests' accuracy and reliability in simulating the real tasks of Fire Fighting. Mean VO2 of the Fire Fighters was 50.17 mlO2/kg/min and was not significantly different from the candidates (p>0.05). Both protocols elicited mean percent HRmax and mean percent VO2max responses between 90 û 100%, however these responses were sustained for a significantly longer duration during the circuit testing compared to the component testing which displayed brief peak values. The survey results indicated that the circuit/Combat Challenge test more accurately simulated the real tasks of Fire Fighting. The main recommendation from this project is that occupation fitness tests for Fire Fighting should involve a circuit of routine Fire Fighting tasks in contrast to a series of isolated component tests. The results suggest that a circuit test is preferred over the traditional Fire Fighter occupation fitness testing in order to best simulate the combined musculoskeletal and cardiovascular stressors of Fire Fighting. This project was supported by the Kitchener Fire Department.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".