Working near a supervised injection facility: A qualitative study of perspectives of firefighter‐emergency medical responders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While firefighter-emergency medical responders (FF-EMR) are important stakeholders in cities considering the implementation of a supervised injection facility (SIF), there is little information on perspectives of first responders who serve these communities. The aim of the present study was to identify FF-EMR perspectives on working near a SIF. METHODS: FF-EMRs from Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services completed an online survey that queried participant perspectives on working near a SIF. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: positive effects, negative effects, duration of assignment, and sense of duty. Similar percentages of first responders reported positive (22.2%) and negative aspects (25.9%) of working near the SIF, while some (18.5%) indicated preference for a short-term assignment to the SIF area. FF-EMRs most commonly described a sense of duty (35.2%). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our study is the first to identify FF-EMR perspectives related to work near a SIF. Perspectives and concerns of first responders should be considered in policy debates about implementation of new SIFs to guarantee an adequately-prepared first responder workforce.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".