The performance of ‘temperature stick’ carbon dioxide absorbent monitors in diving rebreathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diving rebreathers use canisters containing soda lime to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from expired gas. Soda lime has a finite ability to absorb CO₂. Temperature sticks monitor the exothermic reaction between CO₂ and soda lime to predict remaining absorptive capacity. The accuracy of these predictions was investigated in two rebreathers that utilise temperature sticks. METHODS: Inspiration and rEvo rebreathers filled with new soda lime were immersed in water at 19°C and operated on mechanical circuits whose ventilation and CO₂-addition parameters simulated dives involving either moderate exercise (6 MET) throughout (mod-ex), or 90 minutes of 6 MET exercise followed by 2 MET exercise (low-ex) until breakthrough (inspired PCO₂ [PiCO₂] = 1 kPa). Simulated dives were conducted at surface pressure (sea-level) (low-ex: Inspiration, n = 5; rEvo, n = 5; mod-ex: Inspiration, n = 7, rEvo, n = 5) and at 3-6 metres' sea water (msw) depth (mod-ex protocol only: Inspiration, n = 8; rEvo, n = 5). RESULTS: Operated at surface pressure, both rebreathers warned appropriately in four of five low-ex tests but failed to do so in the 12 mod-ex tests. At 3-6 msw depth, warnings preceded breakthrough in 11 of 13 mod-ex tests. The rEvo warned conservatively in all five tests (approximately 60 minutes prior). Inspiration warnings immediately preceded breakthrough in six of eight tests, but were marginally late in one test and 13 minutes late in another. CONCLUSION: When operated at even shallow depth, temperature sticks provided timely warning of significant CO₂ breakthrough in the scenarios examined. They are much less accurate during simulated exercise at surface pressure.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".