Prediction of work metabolism from heart rate measurements in forest work: some practical methodological issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual heart rate (HR) to workload relationships were determined using 93 submaximal step-tests administered to 26 healthy participants attending physical activities in a university training centre (laboratory study) and 41 experienced forest workers (field study). Predicted maximum aerobic capacity (MAC) was compared to measured MAC from a maximal treadmill test (laboratory study) to test the effect of two age-predicted maximum HR Equations (220-age and 207-0.7 × age) and two clothing insulation levels (0.4 and 0.91 clo) during the step-test. Work metabolism (WM) estimated from forest work HR was compared against concurrent work V̇O2 measurements while taking into account the HR thermal component. Results show that MAC and WM can be accurately predicted from work HR measurements and simple regression models developed in this study (1% group mean prediction bias and up to 25% expected prediction bias for a single individual). Clothing insulation had no impact on predicted MAC nor age-predicted maximum HR equations. Practitioner summary: This study sheds light on four practical methodological issues faced by practitioners regarding the use of HR methodology to assess WM in actual work environments. More specifically, the effect of wearing work clothes and the use of two different maximum HR prediction equations on the ability of a submaximal step-test to assess MAC are examined, as well as the accuracy of using an individual's step-test HR to workload relationship to predict WM from HR data collected during actual work in the presence of thermal stress.
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 | 0.093 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".