Development and Evaluation of the Firefighter Exposure to Carcinogens Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Firefighters are exposed to carcinogens from combustion, necessitating decontamination practices. This study developed and validated the Firefighter Exposure to Carcinogens Scale (FECS) to assess exposure-mitigating behaviors. METHODS: The sample included 179 volunteer firefighters from across Canada, comprising both English and French speakers, evaluated 20 items on exposure prevention across the following three dimensions: perceived importance, past behavior, and future intention. Principal axis factor analysis was conducted, and parallel analysis based on principal components determined the number of factors. McDonald's Omega measured internal consistency, and item-total correlations were examined. RESULTS: A one-factor solution was acceptable for all scales, with high coefficient omega values indicating strong internal consistency. Small mean differences between language groups were nonsignificant, and no correlations were found with demographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: The FECS is a reliable, valid one-factor model for both languages, supporting cancer prevention efforts.
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".