The effect of biological sex on cool seeking behavior during passive heat stress in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that females engage in cool seeking behavior to a greater extent during passive heating compared to males. METHODS: 27 healthy participants (14 males) underwent two trials of 50 min lower leg passive heating with (Fan trial) and without the fan (No fan trial) in a 27 °C, 50% relative humidity environment. In the Fan trials, participants were allowed to use the fan by pressing the button to keep themselves comfortable while they were not allowed in the No fan trial. RESULTS: Cool seeking behavior was initiated at the same change (∆) in rectal temperature (0.2 (0.2) °C vs 0.2 (0.1) °C, p = 0.281) and ∆ mean skin temperature (2.1 (0.6) °C vs 2.3 (0.6) °C, p = 0.307), but cooling time was longer (13.5 (5.4) min vs 17.3 (3.9) min, p = 0.040) and cumulative number of times pressing the button is more often (7.3 (3.6) times vs 10.8 (4.6) times, p = 0.049) in females compared to males. Thermal sensation, thermal discomfort, and perceived skin wetness were not different between sexes during lower leg passive heating in all trials (all p > 0.145). Furthermore, whole body sweat loss and local sweat rate on the forearm were significantly higher in males compared to females (all p < 0.042) across Fan and No fan trials. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, females engage in cool seeking behavior to a greater extent than males. Furthermore, thermal perceptions are not different between sexes during passive heating.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".