Prevalence and Mediating Factors of Post-Traumatic Stress in Professional Fire-Fighters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on Post-Traumatic Stress (PTS) in fire-fighters have typically examined group responses to unusual and traumatic events. In this study, symptoms of PTS were observed in a group of urban Canadian firefighters during routine operations in the context of typical daily work. Participants completed a PTS questionnaire as well as a workplace health questionnaire which assessed environmental and contextual factors in addition to personal health. Elevated levels of PTS were observed in 18.1% of the 105 fire-fighters studied. Those who reported elevated symptoms also reported more concern for financial issues, more worries and more concern about needing physical exercise and support services. These results indicate that emergency response professionals such as fire-fighters can develop elevated levels of PTS in the context of routine work. The findings also suggest that the development of PTS involves a complex relationship between characteristics of stressors, work related variables and other contextual factors specific to the individuals affected. Complex models are needed to account for these types of interactions, particularly in chronically stressful occupational settings. Strategies for mitigating symptoms of PTS are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".