The right stuff: Salutogenic and pathogenic responses over a year in Antarctica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since the first human reached the South Pole, studies have sought to explore the impact of an isolated, confined, and unusual environment on human adaptation. The findings have highlighted both negative and salutogenic effects on crews. Although several studies have focused on adaptation in the polar regions, we still do not fully understand its mechanisms. Thus, the objectives of the present study are: (1) to investigate the impact of a one-year stay in Antarctica on health adaptation; and (2) to assess recovery from this experience two days later. Seventeen healthy participants were recruited to stay for one year at the French Dumont d’Urville station in Antarctica. Psychological, physiological, and exteroceptive measures were recorded on the day of arrival at the station (baseline), during each quarter of the wintering season (M4, M7, M10, M12), and two days after the return to the continent (D+2). Subjects were allocated to two groups according to their scores on the General Health Questionnaire at baseline, as follows: very limited or no existence of minor non-psychiatric or psychotic disorders (higher than normal, HN); and standard values for non-psychiatric or minor psychotic disorders within the general population (ordinary range, OR). Our results highlight both an adaptative response during the winter months, and pathogenic states during the last quarter of the mission and at recovery (D+2), which are still below normal values for psychological disorders and stress. The analysis of OR and HN groups during overwintering highlights a decrease in psychosensory responses, and thus poorer adaptation. Spending a year in Antarctica no longer has harmful consequences (except during the third quarter of the mission), and the harshness of the environment in midwinter does not seem to be an aggravating factor for the winterers included in this study. Nevertheless, the General Health Questionnaire indicates two levels of adaptation during the mission. The latter observation suggests that there is a need to select the most-adaptable crews to maintain high performance during overwintering, and to prepare for the return to the continent. Taken together, our results contribute to a better understanding of adaptation in extreme environments, notably future dark space exploration.
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 | 0.001 | 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".