MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206084024 · doi:10.1186/s12995-021-00328-w

Health risks and mitigation strategies from occupational exposure to wildland fire: a scoping review

2022· review· en· W4206084024 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrey literatureMedicineEnvironmental healthOccupational safety and healthMental healthGovernment (linguistics)Poison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionUnit (ring theory)MEDLINEPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Due to accelerating wildland fire activity, there is mounting urgency to understand, prevent, and mitigate the occupational health impacts associated with wildland fire suppression. The objectives of this review of academic and grey literature were to: 1. Identify the impact of occupational exposure to wildland fires on physical, mental, and emotional health; and 2. Examine the characteristics and effectiveness of prevention, mitigation, or management strategies studied to reduce negative health outcomes associated with occupational exposure to wildland fire. METHODS: Following established scoping review methods, academic literature as well as government and industry reports were identified by searching seven academic databases and through a targeted grey literature search. 4679 articles were screened using pre-determined eligibility criteria. Data on study characteristics, health outcomes assessed, prevention or mitigation strategies studied, and main findings were extracted from each included document. The results of this scoping review are presented using descriptive tables and a narrative summary to organize key findings. RESULTS: The final sample was comprised of 100 articles: 76 research articles and 24 grey literature reports. Grey literature focused on acute injuries and fatalities. Health outcomes reported in academic studies focused on respiratory health (n = 14), mental health (n = 16), and inflammation and oxidative stress (n = 12). The identified studies evaluated short-term outcomes measuring changes across a single shift or wildland fire season. Most research was conducted with wildland firefighters and excluded personnel such as aviation crews, contract crews, and incident management teams. Five articles reported direct study of mitigation strategies, focusing on the potential usage of masks, advanced hygiene protocols to reduce exposure, fluid intake to manage hydration and core temperature, and glutamine supplementation to reduce fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: While broad in scope, the evidence base linking wildland fire exposure to any one health outcome is limited. The lack of long-term evidence on changes in health status or morbidity is a clear evidence gap and there is a need to prioritize research on the mental and physical health impact of occupational exposure to wildland fire.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.373
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it