Posture Evaluation of Firefighters During Simulated Fire Suppression Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Posture mechanics during fire suppression tasks are associated with musculoskeletal injuries in firefighters. Methods: This study uses the Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS) ergonomics tool to describe and evaluate the postures of 48 firefighters during 3 simulated tasks: (a) hose drag, (b) hose pull, and (c) high-rise pack lift. Ergonomics intervention prioritizations based on the OWAS action classification (AC) scores were identified using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Chi-square analyses identified associations between firefighter characteristics and OWAS AC scores. Findings: The initial hose pick-up phase of each task was identified as a high priority for ergonomics intervention (OWAS AC = 4) in 45.8%, 54.2%, and 45.8% of cases for Tasks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Lower BMI was associated with higher AC scores for the initial hose pick-up during Task 3 (likelihood ratio = 9.20, p value = .01). Conclusion: The results inform ergonomics priorities for firefighter training based on the tasks analyzed. Application to Practice: This study evaluates the posture mechanics of three commonly performed firefighting tasks. The results help inform an ergonomics training intervention focused on posture mechanics during occupational activities for firefighters.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".