International Organization for Standardization (ISO) thermal manikin working group round robin testing of thermal resistance of suits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ISO Thermal Manikin Working Group has been tasked to assess the suitability to include thermal manikins in the standard for the current immersion suit approval testing. Five international laboratories were involved in a round robin test to measure the thermal resistance of immersion suits. The objectives are (1) to assess the uniformity of thermal resistance of suits derived from different manikins, to attempt to quantify the errors caused by methodology, tools and calculation methods; and (2) to evaluate the difference in thermal resistance output between manikin and human for the same immersion suit. The results of the tests conducted at National Research Council Canada, Institute for Ocean Technology (NRC-IOT) are documented in this report. In air, the thermal resistance of a manikin wearing only test clothing was determined to be 1.408 clo. The thermal resistance of a manikin wearing a non-insulated immersion suit and an insulated suit, with SOLAS RTD lifejacket over test clothing were 2.442 clo and 2.574 clo, respectively. In water, under uniform cooling conditions, the thermal resistance for a non-insulated immersion suit and an insulated immersion suit were 0.532 clo and 1.355 clo, respectively. Under non-uniform cooling conditions, the results can be up to 25% different from those conducted in uniform cooling conditions. It is concluded that under uniform cooling conditions, the constant temperature control mode of thermal manikins and the parallel method can be used to determine thermal resistance. Further research and development are needed before thermal manikins could be used with confidence for suit evaluation under non-uniform cooling conditions. To provide the scientific evidence that manikins can be used as an evaluation tool for immersion suits, it is also important to assess the thermal resistance of humans and manikins in the same environmental conditions, concurrently, in the same laboratory.
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 | 0.040 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".