MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preliminary Assessment Of Initial Stay Times On Work Output For Moderate-Intensity Work In The Heat

2025· article· en· W4414225942 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)MorningDuration (music)Core (optical fiber)Work hoursVolume (thermodynamics)WorkloadWork time

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workers performing prolonged work in the heat are at an elevated risk of experiencing heat-related injuries. To reduce these risks, workplaces are advised by regulatory agencies to implement work-rest allocations to prevent rises in core temperature above 38 °C. However, until recently no guidance was provided on the initial duration that continuous work could be performed (termed initial stay time; IST) before work-rest allocations should be employed. While general estimates for IST were introduced for moderate-intensity work, it remains unclear if the application of IST may affect total work volume completed over a prolonged workday in a hot environment. PURPOSE: To determine if total work volume differs during daylong moderate-intensity work performed with and without the application of IST prior to implementing the prescribed work-rest allocations. METHODS: On two separate days, 7 young males (age: 22.6 ± 2.6 yrs; V̇O2max: 47.0 ± 7.9 ml·min-1·kg-1) completed daylong work consisting of moderate-intensity treadmill walking (200 W·m-2 metabolic rate) at a wet-bulb globe temperature of 26 °C, performed in the morning (4-h) and afternoon (4-h), separated by a 1-h lunch break (22 °C). Participants either 1) commenced each work period with the recommended 3:1 work-rest allocation starting with a 45 min work bout followed by a 15 min rest (Trial A), or 2) performed continuous work until IST was achieved, after which the prescribed work-rest allocation of 3:1 (starting with a 15 min rest) was applied for the duration of the work period (Trial B). Core (rectal) temperature was measured continuously. RESULTS: Total work volume in the morning period was 9% higher when IST was applied (197 ± 20 min; effect size = 1.17), while only 3% in the afternoon period (186 ± 17 min; effect size = 0.53), as compared to the immediate use of work-rest cycles (i.e., 180 min). Core temperature exceeded the recommended safe upper limits of 38 °C for 42 ± 7% and 41 ± 7% of the work period for trial A and B, respectively in the morning, increasing to 55 ± 17% and 52 ± 12% in the afternoon. CONCLUSION: Performing continuous work prior to the implementation of work-rest allocations was associated with a greater work volume in the morning only, relative to commencing with work-rest allocations. IST can be safely implemented, resulting in greater work output in morning. Supported by: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Ontario)

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.338 · 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