The Relationship between Physical Fitness and Simulated Firefighting Task Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall aim of this study was to measure the physiological responses of firefighters from a single fire service during simulated functional firefighting tasks and to establish the relationship between physical fitness parameters and task performance. 46 males and 3 females firefighters were recruited. Firefighters’ aerobic capacity levels were estimated using the Modified Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (mCAFT). Grip strength levels, as a measure of upper body strength levels, were assessed using a calibrated J-Tech dynamometer. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) protocol for the static floor lifting test was used to quantify lower body strength levels. Firefighters then performed two simulated tasks: a hose drag task and a stair climb with a high-rise pack tasks. Pearson’s correlation coefficients ( r ) were calculated between firefighters’ physical fitness parameters and task completion times. Two separate multivariable enter regression analyses were carried out to determine the predictive abilities of age, sex, muscle strength, and resting heart rate on task completion times. Our results displayed that near maximal heart rates of ≥88% of heart rate maximum were recorded during the two tasks. Correlation ( r ) ranged from −0.30 to 0.20. For the hose drag task, cardiorespiratory fitness and right grip strength (kg) demonstrated the highest correlations of −0.30 and −0.25, respectively. In predicting hose drag completion times, age and right grip strength scores were shown to be the statistically significant ( p<0.05 ) independent variables in our regression model. In predicting stair climb completion times, age and NIOSH scores were shown to be the statistically significant ( p<0.05 ) independent variables in our regression model. In conclusion, the hose drag and stair climb tasks were identified as physiological demanding tasks. Age, sex, resting heart rate, and upper body/lower body strength levels had similar predictive values on hose drag and stair climb completion times.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".