Problems and Complications With Cold-Water Rescue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A case description is presented of a 9-member rowing team whose scull swamped on a small lake in Victoria, Canada, because of a sudden winter storm, which immersed them in 4 degrees C water for 50 minutes until a small rescue boat found them in darkness. Another 13 minutes of cold exposure in 6.7 degrees C air occurred during boat transport to waiting ambulance paramedics. Two rowers died, one from severe hypothermia and the other from drowning as a consequence of cold incapacitation and hypothermia. The 2 coldest rowers, who were transported 8 km to a major hospital, arrived with rectal temperatures of 23.4 degrees C and 25 degrees C; the first was asystolic and the second was unconscious and in sinus bradycardia. Analysis of all the circumstances of this incident provided an opportunity to observe a continuum of responses in a heterogeneous group of rowers at risk of severe hypothermia. Several practical lessons concerning cold-water survival, rescue, and treatment can be learned. The effects of low body mass were associated with greater cooling rate. Diminished neuromuscular performance in the periphery appeared to be independent of body mass. Rough handling during moving of patients with marked hypothermia introduces the risk of producing ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest. Unconscious, nonshivering hypothermia victims who are rescued and insulated from cold could have a further afterdrop of 3 degrees C to 4 degrees C. During transport to a hospital, the use of heating devices concentrating on core regions may increase the chance of successful treatment in the hospital. Cardiopulmonary bypass may be indicated for severely hypothermic patients in asystole.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".