Oxygen cost of the CF–DND fire fit test in males and females
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
The Department of National Defence employs a work-related test circuit comprising 10 various firefighting tasks (FF test) to assess the fitness of incumbent Canadian Forces firefighters. The main purpose of this study was to document the oxygen cost of the FF test over a wide range of performance times. These data were then used to predict the oxygen cost associated with the 8 min completion standard. Finally, we examined the influence of gender on selected physiological responses during the FF test. Thirty male and 23 female subjects practiced the test 3-5 times and then completed, in random order and on separate days, a maximal-effort trial while breathing with either a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or a portable metabolic measurement system (MMC). The breath-by-breath gas exchange data from the MMC were collapsed into a single value that represented the average oxygen cost for each participant to complete the work simulation. To calculate the average VO2 associated with the 8 min completion time, separate regression lines for test duration and average VO2 were generated for males and females. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that the regression lines for the male and female groups coincided, therefore all data were collapsed. The resulting regression equation predicted that the average VO2 associated with the 8 min standard was 34.1 (+/-4.0) mL.kg(-1).min(-1), and this value appears consistent with other research on the oxygen cost of firefighting. There was no evidence to suggest that the oxygen cost of meeting the 8 min standard was different for males or females.
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) | 0.000 | 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