Fatigue and sleep patterns among Canadian wildland firefighters during a 17-day fire line deployment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to enhance our understanding of the effects the current British Columbia Wildfire Service (BCWS) firefighting schedule have on the development of fatigue and sleep deprivation. This was a cohort study that objectively and subjectively measured sleep quantity, sleep quality, and fatigue throughout a 17-day British Columbia wildland firefighting deployment. Wildland firefighters (n = 30) conducted daily testing of sleep and fatigue measures during 14 days of activity on the fire line and three days immediately post deployment during their three-day rest period, for a total of 17 days of data collection. Sleep was assessed using wrist-worn actigraphy (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, FL) and subjective sleep questionnaires. Fatigue was assessed using subjective fatigue questionnaires and cognitive performance through the psychomotor vigilance test. Total sleep time was less on fire days (M = 6.6 h ± 49.2 min) compared to non-fire days (M = 6.8 h ± 92.2 min). Participants performed poorer on cognitive performance tests, (p = 0.288), and reported being significantly sleepier, (p = 0.038), toward the end of their 17-day deployment compared to day 1. Participants continued to report high levels of sleepiness, fatigue, and poor quality of sleep on their rest days compared to their fire line days. Working 14 consecutive days was associated with increased levels of objective fatigue and suboptimal sleep in wildland firefighters. Wildland firefighters reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and decreased alertness with increasing days on deployment and these levels did not improve following a three-day rest period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".