MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403670711 · doi:10.1080/23328940.2024.2408059

Cold weather operations: Preventive strategies in a military context

2024· review· en· W4403670711 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Klous, Hilde K. Teien, Sarah Hollis, Koen Levels, Wendy Sullivan‐Kwantes, François Haman, John W. Castellani, Milène Catoire, Boris Kingma

Bibliographic record

VenueTemperature · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersMinistry of Defense
KeywordsCold weatherContext (archaeology)AeronauticsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyHistoryGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Military cold weather operations (CWOs) introduce a range of challenges, including extreme temperatures, strong winds, difficult terrain, and exposure to snow, ice, and water. Personnel undertaking these missions face a heightened risk of cold weather injury (CWI), such as hypothermia, freezing cold injuries, and non-freezing cold injuries. The risk of these injuries is influenced by various factors, including age, sex, and body composition. To ensure optimal and safe performance in CWOs, it is crucial to implement effective preventive measures against CWI. This article emphasizes the most pertinent strategies for CWI prevention in CWOs. Initially, it is important to assess individual vulnerability to CWI. Education and training on CWI prevention should be provided before deployment in CWOs. During CWOs, attention should be given to crucial behaviors such as using a proper layered clothing system, recognizing the risks associated with prolonged stationary periods in cold conditions, consuming adequate calories, and staying hydrated. Additionally, environmental monitoring using tools like the windchill index and regular checks on physical status are essential. Although monitoring by itself does not prevent CWI, it can prompt necessary behavioral adjustments. Education and behavioral modifications are central to preventing CWI. Given the limited research on CWI prevention in military settings, despite the frequent occurrence of these injuries, there is a pressing need for further studies to evaluate effective preventive strategies within this specific operational framework.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemperatureSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207