A Tale of Two Climbers: Hypothermia, Death, and Survival on Mount Everest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothermia is an acknowledged risk for those who venture into high altitude regions. There is however little quantitative information on this risk that can be used to implement mitigation strategies. Here we provide an analysis of the meteorological and hypothermic risk parameters, wind chill temperature, and facial frostbite time, during the spring 2006 Mount Everest climbing season. This season was marked by two high profile events where a solo climber was forced to spend the night in highly exposed conditions near the summit. One climber survived, while the other did not. Although this retrospective examination of two individual cases has admittedly a small sample size, and there are other factors that undoubtedly contributed to the difference in outcomes, we show that wind chill temperature and facial frostbite time experienced by the two climbers were dramatically different. In particular, the climber who did not survive experienced conditions that were approximately one standard deviation more severe that usual for that time of the year; while the climber who survived experienced conditions that were approximately one standard deviation less severe then usual. This suggests that the environmental conditions associated with hypothermia played an important role in the outcomes. This report confirms the importance of providing quantitative guidance to climbers as the risk of hypothermia on high mountains.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".