The Validity and Reliability of a Treadmill Test for Structural Firefighter Applicants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This 2-part study evaluated validity and reliability of a treadmill test for structural firefighters. METHODS: Wearing fire protective ensemble, 260 participants walked at 1.56 m·s-1, completing a 5-min warm-up, an 8-min stage at a 5.71° incline, then graded stages to exhaustion. In Part 2, 21 participants completed the test on 3 separate days under standardized conditions. RESULTS: Average (±SD) oxygen uptake () during minutes 1-13 was similar to reported values for simulated fire-rescue work. During the 13th min, was consistent with recommendations for firefighters. in Part 2, exercise duration increased between trials 1 and 2 before stabilizing but was consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Congruence with reported during simulated firefighting and recommendations for confirmed validity. Acceptable test-retest reliability was demonstrated. We conclude that the test is valid and reliable for evaluating cardiorespiratory endurance for firefighting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".