Heat tolerance and the validity of occupational heat exposure limits in women during moderate-intensity work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To mitigate excessive rises in core temperature (>1 °C) in non-heat acclimatized workers, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) provides heat stress limits (Action Limit Values; ALV), defined by the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) and a worker’s metabolic rate. However, since these limits are based on data from men, their suitability for women remains unclear. We therefore assessed core temperature and heart rate in men ( n = 19; body surface area-to-mass ratio: 250 (SD 17) cm 2 /kg) and women ( n = 15; body surface area-to-mass ratio: 268 (SD 24) cm 2 /kg) aged 18–45 years during 180 min of walking at a moderate metabolic rate (200 W/m 2 ) in WBGTs below (16 and 24 °C) and above (28 and 32 °C) ACGIH ALV. Sex did not significantly influence (i) rises in core temperature, irrespective of WBGT, (ii) the proportion of participants with rises in core temperature >1 °C in environments below ACGIH limits, and (iii) work duration before rises in core temperature exceeded 1 °C or volitional termination in environments above ACGIH limits. Although further studies are needed, these findings indicate that for the purpose of mitigating rises in core temperature exceeding recommended limits (>1 °C), ACGIH guidelines have comparable effectiveness in non-heat acclimatized men and women during moderate-intensity work. Novelty: Sex did not appreciably influence thermal strain nor the proportion of participants with core temperatures exceeding recommended limits. Sex did not significantly influence tolerance to uncompensable heat stress. Despite originating from data obtained in only men, current occupational heat stress guidance offered comparable effectiveness in men and women.
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 | 0.000 |
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".