MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400269515 · doi:10.24124/2024/59527

Mental health outcomes and psychosocial risk factors in wildland firefighters and support staff

2024· dissertation· en· W4400269515 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Lane

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMental healthPsychologyPsychosocial supportMedicineApplied psychologyEnvironmental healthNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

,Wildfire seasons are increasing in intensity and duration, compounding the demands of an already challenging occupation. Wildland firefighters are a unique first responder population not yet adequately represented in the literature or in first responder mental health services. Existing research on wildland firefighters focuses almost exclusively on the experiences of direct suppression staff, thereby excluding a significant portion of the workforce involved in support and management roles. This research addresses that gap by assessing mental health outcomes and psychosocial risk factors in BC Wildfire Service wildland firefighters and support staff during the 2023 fire season. High prevalence rates of probable PTSD (26%), probable major depressive disorder (30%), probable generalized anxiety disorder (30%), high stress (27%), high suicide risk (34%), and high rates of moderate- to high-risk tobacco (40%), alcohol (23%), cannabis (33%) and caffeine use (83%) were identified. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors at the individual, positional, and organizational levels for each outcome variable. A distinct combination of variables significantly predicted each mental health outcome. Negative mental health outcomes were most often predicted by existing mental health diagnoses and significant prior trauma at the individual level and by excess job demands, lack of career development, and inadequate work/life balance at the organizational level.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.423 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207