Divergent thinking in groups during cold-water immersion is impaired by cold stress not the cold shock response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A primary hazard of working in cold maritime environments is the potential for a substantial man overboard situation in freezing waters. Sudden cold-water immersion (CWI) triggers the cold shock response (CSR), which consists of cardiorespiratory responses that increase the chance of drowning. If cold shock response severity can be mitigated, life-saving actions must be taken within the first 10 min, as after this time frame drowning occurs due to cold incapacitation. To date, research shows that executive functioning is generally impaired by intense, acute stress, which implies the ability to think through potential actions to maximize survival would also be impaired by the cold shock response. Methods: To examine whether the severity of cold shock response impairs higher-level thinking in a group, 29 active duty service members completed a group format Divergent Association Task (DAT; 4-5 per group) prior to and during a 13-min cold-water immersion (water temperature: 1.3°C, air temperature: -2.7°C). Results: Results showed no relationship between cold shock response magnitude, indexed by peak heart rate, and DAT performance. However, results indicated that those with lower skin temperatures performed worse on the DAT. Discussion: Results suggest that the ability to engage in divergent thinking is relatively preserved in the critical ~10-min window although skin cooling may bias attention toward the cold stress impacting task performance. Furthermore, subjective reports of the severity of the initial gasp tracked with peak heart rate demonstrating potential utility of subjective responses in the absence of respiratory measurements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".