Children’s thermoregulation during exercise in the heat — a revisit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The review revisits some child-adult differences relevant to thermoregulation and offers alternatives to accepted interpretations. Morphologically, children have a higher body surface area to mass ratio -- a major factor in "dry" heat dissipation and effective sweat evaporation. Locomotion-wise, children are less economical than adults, producing more heat per unit body mass. Additionally, children need to divert a greater proportion of their cardiac output to the skin under heat stress. Thus, a larger proportion of their cardiac output is shunted away from the body's core and working muscles -- particularly in hot conditions. Finally, under all environmental conditions and allometric comparisons, children's sweating rates are lower than those of adults. The differences appear to suggest thermoregulatory inferiority, but no epidemiological data show higher heat-injury rates in children, even during heat waves. We suggest that children employ a different thermoregulatory strategy. In extreme temperatures, they may indeed be more vulnerable, but under most ambient conditions they are not necessarily inferior to adults. Children rely more on dry heat dissipation by their larger relative skin surface area than on evaporative heat loss. This also enables them to evaporate sweat more efficiently with the added bonus of conserving water better than adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".