Uncompensable Heat Stress and Repeated Constant Workloads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response to acute bouts of work during an uncompensable heat stress situation is relatively well denned however; the response to repeated acute work bouts under such conditions remains undefined. PURPOSE: To determine the core body temperature and cardiopulmonary responses to repeated acute work bouts in an uncompensable heat stress condition. METHODS: Eight male professional firefighters (age 36.3 ± 6.1 yrs, height 181.0 ± 3.2 cm, weight 84.9 ± 8.1 kg, VO2peak 44.7 ± 2.8 ml.kg-1.min-1) completed four, eight-minute work bouts on a motor-driven treadmill (3.5 mph, 8% grade) each of which was separated by five-minutes of passive recovery. Throughout the duration of the protocol all participants wore full firefighting personal protective equipment (PPE) and were breathing via a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) modified to interface with a metabolic measurement cart (MMC). Gas exchange parameters were recorded throughout the work intervals and core body temperature was monitored throughout the work and recovery intervals using an ingestible biocompatible thermistor. Subjective assessments of perceived exertion, perceived thermal sensation and perceived thermal comfort were recorded during the second and seventh minute of each work bout. Comparisons between the repeated work bouts were assessed using an ANOVA. RESULTS: Oxygen consumption (VO2) was unchanged (p<0.05) across the four repeated work bouts whereas core body temperature (CT), heart rate (HR), ventilation (VE), and VCO2 increased (p<0.05) with each subsequent work bout. Subjective measures of rating of perceived exertion, rating of perceived thermal sensation and rating of perceived thermal comfort were increased in the third and fourth work bouts compared to the first work bout (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: During uncompensable heat stress conditions repeated work bouts can alter the physiological and perceived demands despite a constant workload.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".