Municipal firefighter exposure groups, time spent at fires and use of self‐contained‐breathing‐apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found significant associations between firefighting and cancer. METHODS: Fires, vehicle movement, and firefighter job assignment were determined, and storage and distribution of self-contained-breathing-apparatus (SCBAs) were tracked for 12 months. Time spent at fires and use of SCBAs were calculated. RESULTS: Only 66% of fire department personnel were 1st-line combat firefighters. Number of runs was an unreliable surrogate for time spent at fires. Eight firefighter exposure groups were identified (based on job title, firehall assignment, and time spent at fires), ranging from no exposures to 3,244 min/year/firefighter. SCBAs appear to have been used for approximately 50% of the time at structural fires but for only 6% of the time at all fires. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of previous studies to identify homogeneous exposure groups may have resulted in misclassification and underestimates of health risks. The approach used in this study may be used in epidemiological studies to identify exposure/response relationships.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".