Work–rest regimens for work in hot environments: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To limit exposures to occupational heat stress, leading occupational health and safety organizations recommend work-rest regimens to prevent core temperature from exceeding 38°C or increasing by ≥1°C. This scoping review aims to map existing knowledge of the effects of work-rest regimens in hot environments and to propose recommendations for future research based on identified gaps. METHODS: We performed a search of 10 databases to retrieve studies focused on work-rest regimens under hot conditions. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included, of which 35 were experimental studies. Most studies were conducted in laboratory settings, in North America (71%), on healthy young adults, with 94% of the 642 participants being males. Most studies (66%) employed a protocol duration ≤240 min (222 ± 162 min, range: 37-660) and the time-weighted average wet-bulb globe temperature was 27 ± 4°C (range: 18-34). The work-rest regimens implemented were those proposed by the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygiene (20%), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (11%), or the Australian Army (3%). The remaining studies (66%) did not mention how the work-rest regimens were derived. Most studies (89%) focused on physical tasks only. Most studies (94%) reported core temperature, whereas only 22% reported physical and/or mental performance outcomes, respectively. Of the 35 experimental studies included, 77% indicated that core temperature exceeded 38°C. CONCLUSIONS: Although work-rest regimens are widely used, few studies have investigated their physiological effectiveness. These studies were mainly short in duration, involved mostly healthy young males, and rarely considered the effect of work-rest regimens beyond heat strain during physical exertion.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".