Body heat storage during intermittent work in hot–dry and warm–wet environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined heat balance using an American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit value allocated exercise protocol in hot-dry (HD; 46 °C, 10% relative humidity (RH)) and warm-wet (WW; 33 °C, 60% RH) environments of equivalent WBGT (29 °C) for different clothing ensembles. Whole-body heat exchange and changes in body heat content (ΔH(b)) were measured using simultaneous direct whole-body and indirect calorimetry. Eight males performed six 15-min cycling periods at a constant rate of metabolic heat production (360 W) interspersed by 5-min rest periods for six experimental trials: HD and WW environments for a seminude control (CON), modified work uniform (MWU, moisture permeable top and work pants), and standard work uniform (SWU, work coveralls and cotton undergarments). Whole-body evaporative and dry heat exchange, rectal temperature (T(re)), and heart rate were measured continuously. The cumulative ΔH(b) during the 2 h intermittent exercise protocol was similar between HD and WW environments for each of the clothing ensembles (CON, 387 ± 55 vs. 435 ± 49 kJ; MWU, 485 ± 58 vs. 531 ± 61 kJ; SWU, 585 ± 74 vs. 660 ± 54 kJ, respectively). Similarly, no differences in T(re) (CON, 37.67 ± 0.07 vs. 37.48 ± 0.08 °C; MWU, 37.73 ± 0.08 vs. 37.53 ± 0.09 °C; SWU, 38.01 ± 0.09 vs. 37.94 ± 0.05 °C) or heat rate (CON, 93 ± 3 vs. 84 ± 3 beats·min⁻¹; MWU, 102 ± 5 vs. 95 ± 9 beats·min⁻¹; SWU, 119 ± 8 vs. 110 ± 9 beats·min⁻¹) were observed at the end of the 2 h intermittent exercise protocol in HD vs. WW environments, respectively. We showed similar levels of thermal and cardiovascular strain for intermittent work performed in high heat stress conditions of varying environmental conditions but similar WBGT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".