Effects of human anthropometry and personal protective equipment on space requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representative samples of offshore workers engaged in the use of totally enclosed lifeboats were recruited in two different regions of Atlantic Canada for this study. Body mass, height and three selected anthropometric dimensions were measured with and without the presence of an immersion suit. Statistical comparisons were made between the two groups and to the main criteria values for body weight and space allocation used international standards for lifeboat capacity rating. There was no difference in the height, body mass and BMI values between the two groups. Both groups were found to be considerably heavier than the IMO Life Saving Code standard of 75 kg. Not surprisingly, the shoulder breadths measurements were always greater than the hip breadth measurements. The seat pan allocation of 430 mm was found to be inadequate for this population and needs to be increased. Finally, the wearing of an immersion suit increases the physical size of each subject by substantial amounts. The magnitude of increase is related to the type of suit and whether there was external compression applied during the measurement. It was recommended that the international standard should be altered by reducing the lifeboat capacity ratings by 20%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".