The habitability and ergonomics of totally enclosed motor propelled survival craft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes a study aimed at investigating several habitability and ergonomic issues associated with the internal environment of totally enclosed motor propelled survival craft (TEMPSC). Numerous anthropometric and structural measures were taken to highlight and investigate various issues of subjects while simulating operation of the coxswain’s station The experiment was designed to establish the impact of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on habitability and ergonomics in the coxswain station by examining the anthropometric measures of subjects in various clothing ensembles (i.e. levels of PPE) and how they may impact the performance of tasks associated with normal TEMPSC operation (i.e. fastening seatbelts, interacting with the coxswain’s station, etc.). Select subjects were also examined in the passenger area to determine the effect of varying levels of PPE on available space (e.g. leg room) and task performance (e.g. seat belt fastening) The results of this study suggest that PPE, general increase in the size of individuals (due to changing anthropometrics and the requirement of marine abandonment suits), and interior lifeboat design can have a direct impact on the operation and habitability of lifeboats, especially over the long periods of occupancy that are typical of operations in remote northern regions.
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) | 0.001 | 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".