Protocols used to determine the influence of backpack load on physiological variables. Systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional mountain rescue mountain groups use backpack equipment in their professional activities. The velocity of ambulation, gradient, load and the participant's physical characteristics have been described in the scientific literature as influential factors on response to exercise. The purpose of the present systematic review is to assess the protocols used to investigate the effects of backpacks and their influence on physiological responses at laboratory. A total of 14 articles were included in the review. Most research studies indicated participants were not experienced with backpack carriage. We observed a certain threshold on physiological changes in response to exercise was between 20 and 40 kg of backpack load. In conclusion, there is a heterogeneity of protocols used at the laboratory, hampering the comparison between different results. Future research should focus on the design of protocols that reproduce real scenarios of targeted populations. Rescue groups, firefighters and military personnel carry load with backpack in emergency interventions. This review analyzes different types of methodological protocols that investigate the influence of backpack load on physiological responses during exercise. The result will help manufacturer design backpacks considering the physiological burden of backpack 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".