MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921689016 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04752.s001

Evaluation\nof Firefighter Exposure to Wood Smoke during\nTraining Exercises at Burn Houses

2016· article· en· W6921689016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmokeOccupational exposurePersonal protective equipmentUrineFirefightingTobacco smokeOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoke from wood-fueled fires is one\nof the most common hazards\nencountered by firefighters worldwide. Wood smoke is complex in nature\nand contains numerous compounds, including methoxyphenols (MPs) and\npolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some of which are carcinogenic.\nChronic exposure to wood smoke can lead to adverse health outcomes,\nincluding respiratory infections, impaired lung function, cardiac\ninfarctions, and cancers. At training exercises held in burn houses\nat four fire departments across Ontario, air samples, skin wipes,\nand urine specimens from a cohort of firefighters (<i>n</i> = 28) were collected prior to and after exposure. Wood was the primary\nfuel used in these training exercises. Air samples showed that MP\nconcentrations were on average 5-fold greater than those of PAHs.\nSkin wipe samples acquired from multiple body sites of firefighters\nindicated whole-body smoke exposure. A suite of MPs (methyl-, ethyl-,\nand propylsyringol) and deconjugated PAH metabolites (hydroxynaphthalene,\nhydroxyfluorene, hydroxyphenanthrene, and their isomers) were found\nto be sensitive markers of smoke exposure in urine. Creatinine-normalized\nlevels of these markers were significantly elevated (<i>p</i> < 0.05) in 24 h postexposure urine despite large between-subject\nvariations that were dependent on the specific operational roles of\nfirefighters while using personal protective equipment. This work\noffers deeper insight into potential health risk from smoke exposure\nthat is needed for translation of better mitigation policies, including\nimproved equipment to reduce direct skin absorption and standardized\nhygiene practices implemented at different regional fire services.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4530.022

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.231 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207