Air Permeability of Sports Fabrics at Running Speeds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To measure fabric permeability over the body at air velocities encountered in running, a series of air pressure measurements were conducted on a mannequin torso in a wind tunnel. Pressure measurements were made at wind speeds of 3.3 m/sec, 5.3 m/sec and 10.0 m/sec from 15 pressure taps that ringed the circumference of the mannequin torso. The pressure measurements were then repeated at the two higher velocities when the pressure taps were covered in one of five fabrics commonly used for sports apparel. Each of the fabrics are considered highly permeable, based on an air permeability rating provided by the fabric manufacturer. The goals of the pressure measurements were: (1) to quantify the ability for air to be transmitted through a garment to an athlete's skin when the athlete is running; and (2) to compare the pressure tap measurements with the manufacturers’ air permeability ratings. The pressure measurements indicated that the only areas of the torso that encounter measurable airflow at wind velocities up to 10 m/sec are the flanks, a phenomenon also observed during dye-injection flow visualization studies conducted on a torso model in a water flume. Covering portions of the torso that receive very little airflow with any fabric further subdued the incoming airflow and the reduction in airflow was not consistently correlated with the fabric air permeability rating. The results of this study suggest that fabric air permeability ratings are of limited utility in the selection of permeable materials for running apparel because of the low air pressures encountered by the torso at running velocities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 it