MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluations Of New Protective Uniforms Must Include Heat Strain During MOPP1 To Determine Heat Tolerance During MOPP4

2007· article· en· W1994526869 on OpenAlexaff
Tom M. McLellan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat transfer and supercritical fluids
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal manikinMedicineSOCKSMaterials scienceThermal insulationComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New biological and chemical protective uniforms are designed to lower heat strain and increase exposure time (ET) when worn in the highest state of military oriented protective posture (MOPP 4). However, these garments are also intended to replace the normal battle dress uniform (BDU) and worn when the threat is low, or MOPP 1. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were twofold; first, to examine whether heat strain experienced during MOPP 1 impacted on ET after the transition to MOPP 4; and second, to determine whether the use of vents in the arms and legs of the new CBplus uniform reduced heat strain during MOPP 1 and increased ET during MOPP 4. METHODS: Eight males (34 ± 8 y, 87 ± 11 kg, 181 ± 7 cm) performed a familiarization session and 4 trials at 35°C and 50% relative humidity with low wind (1 m/s) walking at 4.5 km/h for 90 min in MOPP 1 and up to a further 90 min in MOPP 4. For trial A subjects wore BDU in MOPP 1 with an overgarment during MOPP 4. Trial B was a 1-piece uniform worn over underwear and a T-shirt in MOPP 1 and MOPP 4 whereas trials C and D involved wearing the CBplus 2-piece uniform over underwear and a T-shirt. During D vents along the arm and upper and lower leg were opened in MOPP 1 but closed during MOPP 4 whereas the vents were closed at all times for C. All trials included the wearing of fragmentation and tactical assault vests and a helmet. RESULTS: Heart rates were lowest during MOPP 1 for A (114 ± 14) andD (114± 13)versusB(122± 19) and C (122 ± 17). Likewise, skin temperature during MOPP 1 was lower for D (35.2 ± 0.8°C) than B (35.8 ± 1.0°C) and C (35.6 ± 1.0°C). Also, A(35.4± 1.0°C) was lower than B. After 90 min in MOPP 1 rectal temperature (Tre) had increased the least in A (0.84 ± 0.2°C) versus the other trials and was significantly lower for D (0.96 ± 0.33°C) compared with C (1.04 ± 0.3°C). Tre increased rapidly during MOPP 4 for A, which also had the shortest ET (40 ± 9 min). The increased thermal strain during MOPP 1 for B offset its theoretical advantage in MOPP 4 such that ET (46 ± 21) min was similar to A. Differences in Tre between C and D remained during MOPP 4 where ET was increased during D (74 ±17 min) and C (62 ±19 min). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the heat strain generated during MOPP 1 impacted ET following the transition to MOPP 4, and the use of vents in the arms and legs of the CBplus uniform reduced heat strain during MOPP 1 thereby increasing ET during MOPP 4.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHeat transfer and supercritical fluidsFrench-language works237,207