Balancing ballistic protection against physiological strain: evidence from laboratory and field trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project was based on the premise that decisions concerning the ballistic protection provided to defence personnel should derive from an evaluation of the balance between protection level and its impact on physiological function, mobility, and operational capability. Civilians and soldiers participated in laboratory- and field-based studies in which ensembles providing five levels of ballistic protection were evaluated, each with progressive increases in protection, mass (3.4-11.0 kg), and surface-area coverage (0.25-0.52 m(2)). Physiological trials were conducted on volunteers (N = 8) in a laboratory, under hot-dry conditions simulating an urban patrol: walking at 4 km·h(-1) (90 min) and 6 km·h(-1) (30 min or to fatigue). Field-based trials were used to evaluate tactical battlefield movements (mobility) of soldiers (N = 31) under tropical conditions, and across functional tests of power, speed, agility, endurance, and balance. Finally, trials were conducted at a jungle training centre, with soldiers (N = 32) patrolling under tropical conditions (averaging 5 h). In the laboratory, work tolerance was reduced as protection increased, with deep-body temperature climbing relentlessly. However, the protective ensembles could be grouped into two equally stressful categories, each providing a different level of ballistic protection. This outcome was supported during the mobility trials, with the greatest performance decrement evident during fire and movement simulations, as the ensemble mass was increased (-2.12%·kg(-1)). The jungle patrol trials similarly supported this outcome. Therefore, although ballistic protection does increase physiological strain, this research has provided a basis on which to determine how that strain can be balanced against the mission-specific level of required personal protection.
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 | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".