Validation of a Wearable Biometric System’s Ability to Monitor Heart Rate in Two Different Climate Conditions under Variable Physical Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has proven the importance of cooling garments in reducing heat stress, especially for workers in extreme environments. The currently available cooling capacity of these garments should be controlled for improving their efficiency and autonomy. In this study, we investigated the Hexoskin wearable biometric shirt’s capacity to monitor heart rate. Twelve male volunteers wore a Hexoskin biometric shirt and Polar® H7 heart rate sensor and they completed two identical tests under two different climate conditions (25°C ± 0.5°C; 39% ± 1% relative humidity and 31°C ± 0.5°C; 60% ± 1% relative humidity). The results from four different statistical methods show a high correlation and an absence of significant differences between the Polar? and Hexoskin systems in monitoring the subjects’ heart rates. The Hexoskin wearable biometric shirt can be used to monitor the heart rate of humans in moderate or hot and humid climates under variable physical activities, regardless of their age, weight or height.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".