Establishment of performance standards and a cut-score for the Canadian Forces Firefighter Physical Fitness Maintenance Evaluation (FF PFME)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bookmark method for setting cut-scores was used to re-set the cut-score for the Canadian Forces Firefighter Physical Fitness Maintenance Evaluation (FF PFME). The time required to complete 10 tasks that together simulate a first-response firefighting emergency was accepted as a measure of work capacity. A panel of 25 Canadian Forces firefighter supervisors set cut-scores in three rounds. Each round involved independent evaluation of nine video work samples, where the times systematically increased from 400 seconds to 560 seconds. Results for Round 1 were discussed before moving to Round 2 and results for Round 2 were discussed before moving to Round 3. Accounting for the variability among panel members at the end of Round 3, a cut-score of 481 seconds (mean Round 3 plus 2 SEM) was recommended. Firefighters who complete the FF PFME in 481 seconds or less have the physical capacity to complete first-response firefighting work.
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 | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".