PW 2321 Human responses to five heated hypothermia enclosure systems in a cold environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objective</h3> The purpose of the study was to determine, and compare, the effectiveness of five heated hypothermia enclosure systems (HES). <h3>Methods</h3> This study compared the thermal, physiologic and subjective responses of five subjects (one female) in five HES (with vapor barrier and chemical heat sources) during 60 min of exposure to a −22°C climate. The five systems were: 1) user-assembled (Control); 2) Doctor Down® Rescue Wrap® (DD); 3) Hypothermia Prevention and Management Kit (HPMK®); 4) MARSARS Hypothermia Stabilizer Bag (M); and 5) Wiggy’s Victims Casualty Hypothermia Bag (W). Core temperature, skin heat loss, and metabolic heat production were determined continuously. Subjective responses were also evaluated for: whole body cold discomfort; overall shivering rating; temperature rating; and overall preferential ranking. <h3>Results</h3> Total heat loss was higher with HPMK, W and M compared to Control and DD (p<0.05). Net heat gain was higher with the Control and DD compared to W and M (p<0.05). Control, M and DD consistently scored better in the subjective scales. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Although all systems provide insulation and heat, the Control (user-assembled), MASARS and Doctor Down systems were more effective, and preferred. <h3>Funding</h3> NSERC, Canada.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".