“Firefighters Hate Two Things—Change and the Way Things Are” Exploring Firefighters’ Perspectives Towards Change
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on firefighters’ relationship with different types of change in their profession and what barriers and facilitators might contribute to how they respond. Informed by the Force Field analysis of change, interviews were conducted to better understand what specific barriers and facilitators contribute to their views on types of change and the level of influence they carried. Twenty-five interviews were conducted with firefighters from a variety of backgrounds, including different ages, genders, ranks, and experience levels for both career and volunteer firefighters. Thematic analysis identified different responses to four common rationales that helped to explain the acceptance or dismissal of changes. These were as follows: (1) openness or apprehension towards change; (2) the results of a cost–benefit analysis that considered financial and manpower limits, perceived legitimacy of the problem, and efficacy of the solution; (3) reference to past experiences with changes that had failed or succeeded; and (4) trusted messengers that respected the chain of command were preferred. These themes are applicable across multiple types of changes, including technological and cultural adaptation. However, they also reveal challenges that may emerge due to friction with firefighters’ professional identities and traditional masculine norms. The patterns identified here can help to inform future efforts to implement changes and to anticipate likely points of friction or motivation that can be leveraged.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it