Shortened Recovery Period Between Firefighting Work Bouts Increases Cardiac Response Disproportionately With Metabolic Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare physiological responses between two firefighting simulations with different recovery periods, one having work bouts intercalated by a shortened recovery period. METHODS: Thirteen male firefighters participated in two different simulations, which comprised two identical 25-minute effort bouts (E1 and E2) intercalated by a recovery period of either 20 (T20) or 5 (T5) minutes. RESULTS: From E1 to E2, the increase of mean heart rate (HR) (26 ± 5 vs 14 ± 5 bpm, P < 0.001) and mean VO2 (1.8 ± 0.4 vs 1.3 ± 0.4 mL kg min, P < 0.001) was higher in T5 than in T20. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that a shortened recovery time between firefighting work bouts intensifies cardiac strain disproportionately with metabolic rate, since mean HR increased by 19.3% and 10.8% while mean VO2 increased by only 7.2% and 5.0% in T5 and T20, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".