MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6929084738 · doi:10.4224/17210696

Assessment of thermal protection and microclimate in SOLAS approved lifeboats

2010· report· en· W6929084738 on OpenAlexafffundvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2010
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersTransport Canada
KeywordsVentilation (architecture)Heat stressThermal comfortMicroclimate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifeboats are used as a means of evacuation from offshore structures and marine vehicles. Currently, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Lifesaving Appliances (LSA) Code does not specify thermal protection and ventilation criteria for lifeboats. The objective of the present study was to assess the thermal protection and ventilation rate of lifeboats for the Arctic environment. Two SOLAS approved lifeboats were used for model development: a 72-person lifeboat with engine off and a 20- person lifeboat with engine on operating at 6 knots and 3 knots. The dilution experiments (where the rate of reduction of concentration in injected carbon dioxide was estimated, to determine ventilation rate) with the 72-person lifeboat found that the lifeboat had a ventilation rate of 2 l/s with vents open, which is inadequate to maintain carbon dioxide level below 5000 ppm. The 20-person lifeboat had 11.6 l/s at full engine power and 7.8 l/s at half power; both being inadequate ventilation rates. A thermal manikin and a mathematical model were used to assess heat and cold stress of lifeboat occupants under various lifeboat, occupancy and ventilation conditions in the Arctic summer environment. In a lifeboat with the engine running, the occupants are likely to suffer heat stress unless a ventilation rate of several hundred litres per second can be achieved. The effect of occupant heat loss with ventilation was also assessed in the 72-person lifeboat with the engine off. When the lifeboat is carrying half the number of people for which it is rated and when these occupants are wearing dry reference clothing and lifejacket, the ventilation rate could be increased to 100 litres per second (minimum ventilation to keep carbon dioxide below 5000 ppm is 27 l/s) to achieve thermoneutral heat loss (51.7 W/m2). When the lifeboat is fully loaded, the ventilation rate can be increased to 300 l/s to achieve a similar microclimate (minimum ventilation rate to keep carbon dioxide level below 5000 ppm is 54 l/s). A higher ventilation rate is required if the engine is on. This suggests that an increase in ventilation rate needs to be implemented to avoid heat stress and provide adequate ventilation. In conclusion, the use of a thermal manikin supported by a simple heat loss model helped define the adequate ventilation rates in lifeboats under simulated Arctic summer conditions and showed that the current risks are mainly carbon dioxide toxicity and heat stress.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicMicroRNA in disease regulation→French-language works237,207→