Physical and cognitive performance during long-term cold weather operations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physiological responses, physical performance, and cognitive performance were measured during military cold weather survival courses to determine the effects of long-term cold exposure on training safety and potential survival ability. METHODS: There were 28 males, from 5 9-d winter survival courses, who participated. Cognitive performance was evaluated through logical reasoning, planning, and vigilance. Physical performance was evaluated with tests of hand function and arm strength. Subjective cold sensation scale (CSS), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and mood indicators were quantified. Core temperature (T(core0) and HR were recorded continuously throughout the courses, and fingertip temperature (T(finger)) was also recorded during testing. Hematocrit values to indicate hydration status were obtained from blood samples taken on three occasions. RESULTS: Mean air temperature (T(air)) during the testing periods ranged from -24.4 to 4.4 degrees C among the five courses. Hydration level and T(core) remained normal throughout all courses while T(finger) decreased with decreasing T(air). Finger dexterity deteriorated by 23-28% when T(finger) decreased from 18 to 10 degrees C. Muscular strength was decreased by a small (4%) but significant amount over 6 d of testing. Cognitive function was unaffected by cold air or time on the course. Mood indicators were consistent with CSS and RPE scores. CONCLUSION: Under the exposure conditions and availability of basic survival equipment, including water, described herein, and in the absence of trauma, healthy fit individuals can participate in this military training without any serious decrements in cognitive and physical performance. In an actual survival situation, similarly decreased dexterity may adversely affect survival activities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".