MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of water temperature on cooling efficiency during hyperthermia in humans

2003· article· en· W2126075331 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperthermiaThermoregulationEnvironmental scienceChemistryMaterials scienceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the cooling rate of hyperthermic subjects, as measured by rectal temperature (T(re)), during immersion in a range of water temperatures. On 4 separate days, seven subjects (4 men, 3 women) exercised at 65% maximal oxygen consumption at an ambient temperature of 39 degrees C until T(re) increased to 40 degrees C (45.4 +/- 4.1 min). After exercise, the subjects were immersed in a circulated water bath controlled at 2, 8, 14, or 20 degrees C until T(re) returned to 37.5 degrees C. No difference in cooling rate was observed between the immersions at 8, 14, and 20 degrees C despite the differences in the skin surface-to-water temperature gradient, possibly because of the presence of shivering at 8 and 14 degrees C. Compared with the other conditions, however, the rate of cooling (0.35 +/- 0.14 degrees C/min) was significantly greater during the 2 degrees C water immersion, in which shivering was seldom observed. This rate was almost twice as much as the other conditions (P < 0.05). Our results suggest that 2 degrees C water is the most effective immersion treatment for exercise-induced hyperthermia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it