MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Energy Requirements And Predictive Factors For Success In The Candidate Physical Abilities Test (CPAT) For Firefighters

2008· article· en· W2095293526 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard L. Hughson, F. Michael Williams-Bell, Rodrigo Villar, M. Sharratt

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)VO2 maxTreadmillPhysical therapyPhysical fitnessStepwise regressionMedicineFitness testPsychologyHeart rateBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Candidate Physical Abilities Test (CPAT) was developed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) as a bona fide occupational requirement for the screening of potential recruits into the profession of fire fighting. PURPOSE: To measure the physiological responses during completion of the 8 item circuit that has a criterion completion time of 10min 20s, and to determine those characteristics associated with success. METHODS: 34 men (81.8 ± 12.2 kg, VO2max 53.0±7.4 mL/kg/min) and 23 women (64.0 ± 10.4 kg, 51.2±6.6 mL/kg/min) participated in the CPAT study after familiarization in accordance with CPAT guidelines. A portable breath-by-breath gas collection system measured oxygen uptake (VO2) during tests. Subjects completed an incremental treadmill running test to determine VO2max and strength tests of upper and lower body. RESULTS: 31 men and 4 women completed the CPAT under the 10-min 20-s criterion time. All subjects were encouraged to complete the circuit regardless of time, but 2 men and 8 women stopped due to fatigue. The energy cost of completing the circuit was correlated with VO2 in L/min (r2=0.60) but not for VO2 in mL/kg/min (r2=0.13); indeed VO2 measured during the test varied from ~30 to 47 mL/kg/min in individuals who completed the circuit in similar times. Respiratory exchange ratio exceeded 1.0 in men but not women. Backward stepwise regression revealed that the completion time could be predicted by the single variable of absolute VO2max expressed without consideration of body mass with all other variables dropped from the model (r2=0.65). VO2max expressed relative to body mass (r2=0.13) and total body mass (overall r2=0.25, men r2=0.07, women r2=0.01) were poor predictors of performance time. Women had considerably longer times for victim drag (71.3±66.6 vs. 24.8±7.4 s) and the breach and pull (109.5±55.8 vs. 52.0±15.1 s) components of the circuit. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the heavy demands of the CPAT circuit and the success of individuals with high absolute VO2max, although body size alone was not predictive of performance time. Supported by WSIB, Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207