The Effect of Low Ambient Relative Humidity on Physical Performance and Perceptual Responses during Load Carriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The study evaluated the effect of low ambient relative humidity on physical performance and perceptual responses during load carriage in a hot environment. Methods: Ten heat-unacclimatised male subjects participated in three 130-min trials, during which they walked on a treadmill, carrying a load of ~35 kg, at a speed of 3.2 km.h-1, with an incident wind at the same velocity and ambient temperature at 45°C. Each trial commenced with a 10-min baseline at 20°C and 50% relative humidity (RH), the subjects transferred to a climatic chamber and commenced their simulated hike, comprising two 50-min walks separated by a 20-min rest period. In two, full protective equipment (FP) trials, RH was 10% (partial pressure of water vapour, pH2O=7.2 mmHg) in one (FP10), and 20% (pH2O=14.4mmHg; FP20) in the other. In the control trial, subjects were semi-nude (SN) and carried the equipment in their backpacks; RH was 20%. Measurements included oxygen uptake, ventilation, heart rate, rectal and skin temperatures, heat flux, temperature perception, and thermal comfort. Results: In FP20, 4 subjects terminated the trial prematurely due to signs of heat exhaustion; there were no such signs in FP10 or SN. Upon completion of the trials, pulmonary ventilation, heart rate and rectal temperature were lower in FP10 (33±5 l/min; 128±21 bpm; 38.2±0.4°C) and SN (34±4 l/min; 113±18 bpm; 38.1±0.4°C than in FP20 (39±8 l/min; 145±12 bpm; 38.6±0.4°C). Evaporation was significantly greater in the SN compared to FP10 and FP20 trials. FP10 was rated thermally more comfortable than FP20. Conclusion: A lower ambient partial pressure of water vapour, reflected in a lower ambient relative humidity, improved cardiorespiratory, thermoregulatory and perceptual responses during load carriage.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".