Thermal Resistance of Inflatable and Non-Inflatable Floors of One-Man Life Rafts for the CF-188 Escape System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to define, using humans as heat source, the difference in thermal resistance of inflatable and non-inflatable floors of one-man life rafts for the CF 188 Escape System of the Canadian Forces. Three life rafts were tested: two with an inflatable floor and one with a non-inflatable floor. Eight subjects of both genders were used to evaluate the thermal resistance of the floors because humans provide adequate heat transfer and pressure on the floors of the life rafts. Skin heat flow and temperatures were recorded from 4 sites on each subject, namely the right and left buttocks and the right and left calves. The results were averaged from the last 10 min of the 1-hour immersion in 5 degrees centigrade water. The results showed that on average, the skin heat loss and temperatures for the four sites were respectively lower by 33% (74 W/m2) and higher by 12 degrees centigrade for the inflatable floors as compared to the non-inflatable floors. This resulted in a floor thermal resistance 10 to 12 times higher for the inflatable floors (0.71 + 0.25 and 0.60 +0.16 Clo) as compared to the non-inflatable floor (0.06 + 0.01 Clo). In conclusion, a life raft with an inflatable floor will significantly reduce the heat loss and the likelihood of developing hypothermia during deployment in cold water when compared to a life raft with a non-inflatable floor.
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".