MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preliminary Assessment Of Safe Initial Stay Times Over Consecutive Workdays For Younger And Older Men

2025· article· en· W4414226154 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah M. Taggart, Gil Bourgois, Katie E. Wager, Roberto C. Harris‐Mostert, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorningWork (physics)Work hoursCore temperatureCore (optical fiber)Paid workEvening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the advice of regulatory agencies, workplaces rely on the use of work-rest allocations to limit elevations in core temperature (Tco) above 38 °C. However, no direction is provided on the continuous work time that can be performed (initial stay time; IST) before work-rest cycles are implemented. We recently generated estimates for ISTs for moderate-intensity work over consecutive days and showed similar responses in younger and older males. However, responses over consecutive days have yet to be assessed for heavy-intensity work, where greater age-related differences have been observed. PURPOSE: To determine IST for heavy-intensity work in the heat and evaluate if adjustments in ISTs are required for younger and older males for i) a second work bout following a lunch break and ii) a work bout performed the next day. METHODS: Eight younger and 10 older males performed 4-h of heavy-intensity treadmill walking (260 W·m−2 metabolic rate) in 26 °C wet-bulb globe temperature. Work continued until Tco reached 38 °C after which a work-rest allocation of 1:1 (starting with 30 min rest) was applied for the remainder of the work period. The protocol was repeated in the afternoon after a 1-h lunch break (22 °C), and the next morning. Core (rectal) temperature was measured continuously. RESULTS: The IST was significantly shorter in the afternoon (30 ± 9 min: p < 0.05) compared to the morning of day 1 (62 ± 25 min) and day 2 (75 ± 39 min), while responses did not differ between morning work (p = 0.15). Further, no differences were observed between younger and older males (p = 0.10). Peak and average Tco during work-rest allocations were greater in the afternoon compared to mornings of day 1 and day 2 (p < 0.05). Relative to their younger counterparts, peak (older: 38.47 ± 0.27 vs younger: 38.12 ± 0.16 °C) and average (older: 38.20 ± 0.20 vs younger: 37.87 ± 0.18 °C) Tco in older males were greater during the afternoon work-rest allocations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although ISTs were shorter in the afternoon following morning work, peak Tco and average Tco were significantly greater in older males relative to younger during the work-rest allocations in the afternoon session. Employers should aim to schedule heavy-intensity work in the morning to avoid sustained elevations in Tco and unsafe work behavior when working in the heat during afternoon periods. 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.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207