Investigation of the Contribution of Garment Design to Thermal Protection. Part 1: Characterizing Air Gaps using Three-dimensional Body Scanning for Women’s Protective Clothing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated the relative degree of thermal protection provided to women when wearing garments designed for women compared to garments designed for men. Air gaps between a female mannequin and protective coveralls were used to determine the effect of garment style and fit on thermal performance. In Part 1, a procedure using a three-dimensional body scanner was developed in order to measure the size and distribution of these air gaps. The findings demonstrated that air gap sizes were not evenly distributed over the mannequin, and were dependent on garment style and fit, as well as body contour. There were a greater number of smaller air gaps over the mannequin than larger ones. In Part 2, garment style and fit, evaluated in terms of air gaps, were related to thermal protection based on instrumented mannequin flash fire evaluation.
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 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 | 0.013 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it