We are all exposed, but some are more exposed than others
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper defines functional cold exposure zones that illustrate whether a person is at risk of developing physical performance loss or cold weather injuries. Individual variation in body characteristics, activity level, clothing and protective equipment all contribute to variation in the effective exposure. Nevertheless, with the right education, training, and cold-adapted behaviours the exposure differences might not necessarily lead to increased risk for cold injury. To support the preparation process for cold weather operations, this paper presents a biophysical analysis explaining how much cold exposure risk can vary between individuals in the same environment. The results suggest that smaller persons are prone to be underdressed for moderate activity levels and larger persons are prone to be overdressed. The consequences of these discrepancies place people at different risks for performance loss or cold weather injuries. Nonetheless, even if all are well-dressed at the whole-body level, variation in hand morphology is also expected to influence hand skin temperatures that can be maintained; with smaller hands being more prone to reach skin temperatures associated with dexterity loss or cold weather injuries. In conclusion, this work focusses on bringing cold science to the Arctic warrior, establishing that combating cold stress is not a one size fits all approach.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".