MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396882823 · doi:10.1093/milmed/usae179

Clothing and Equipment Fit Among Male and Female Canadian Armed Forces Members

2024· article· en· W4396882823 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristina M. Gruevski, Adrienne Sy, Linda Bossi, Emma Moon, Junhan Bae, Allan Keefe

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesDepartment of National DefenceGovernment of CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsClothingMilitary medicineMilitary personnelNavyAeronauticsEnvironmental healthMedicineDemographyPolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The fit of military clothing and equipment is essential for the health and safety of military operators. Given the aim of increasing the proportion of women and the known biological and morphological differences between male and female soldiers, an understanding of fit across different items of kit is needed. The aim of this study was to quantify subjective fit ratings of 8 items of military clothing and equipment, including combat shirt, combat pants, rucksack, small pack, tactical vest, fragmentation vest, helmet, and ballistic eyewear as a function of relative stature and occupational group among male and female Canadian Armed Forces members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to male and female Canadian Armed Forces members, where fit was reported by participants according to a 7-point Likert acceptability scale. Participants were binned into 1 of 6 (3 males, 3 females) standing stature categories based on percentiles in a male and female distribution that included (1) under 35th percentile stature, (2) 35th to 80th percentile stature, and (3) over 80th percentile stature. Additionally, participants were separated according to occupational group: Group A: Infantry, Combat Engineer, Artillery, Armored; group B: Signals, Medical Technician, Intelligence, Signals Intelligence/Cyber Ops; group C: Supply Technician, Weapons Technician, Vehicle Technician, Electronic-Optronic Technician, Ammunition Technician; other: Not in other groups, examples include: Financial Services Administrator, Cook. This study was approved by the Defence Research and Development Canada Human Research Ethics Committee under protocol 2019-048, Amendment 2. RESULTS: There were significant effects attributable to stature category and occupational group on the fit of equipment. Specifically, fit acceptability of the rucksack helmet, small pack, and tactical vest was significantly affected by occupational group. Differences between stature categories were detected in all items with the exception of the small pack. CONCLUSIONS: Military equipment fit has previously been shown to have implications for protection, performance, and mobility. The results of the investigation demonstrate different patterns of fit acceptability in male and female soldiers across items of clothing and equipment and may require different solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary MedicineSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207