The cost and distribution of firefighter injuries in a large Canadian Fire Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited data available regarding the cost of firefighter injuries. This information is necessary to develop targeted injury prevention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To categorize the cost of injuries filed in 2012 by firefighters from a from a large department by job duty, injury type, body part affected, and the general motion pattern employed at the time of injury. METHODS: Data were taken from reports filed by CFD personnel and claims filed with the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) of Alberta between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012. RESULTS: Of the 244 injuries reported, 65% were categorized as sprains and strains, the most frequent of which affected the back (32%). The total cost of all claims was $555,955; 77% were sprain/strain-related. Knee and back injuries were most costly ($157,383 and $100,459). Categorized by job duty, most sprains/strains (31%) were sustained while attending to fire station responsibilities, although physical training was associated with the highest costs (34%). Fireground operations were attributed to 18% of sprains/strains and 16% of costs. Lifting injuries were more frequent (23%) and costly (20%) than all injuries. CONCLUSIONS: The most common and costly injuries occurred while attending to fire station-related responsibilities and during physical training.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".