Thermal manikin calibration method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007 the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) established ISO/TC 188/WG 14 Thermal Manikin Working Group to study the suitability of using thermal manikins for approval testing and to propose updated wording to include manikins in ISO 15027-3 Immersion Suit Test Method. To systematically conduct research to investigate human and manikin equivalence, it is necessary to first establish a common, traceable calibration for thermal manikins, so there is confidence that thermal manikins accurately report temperatures, heat loss and power, and that differences in results among thermal manikins and manikin-human correlation are understood, quantified and accounted. The goal of this project is to develop a thermal manikin calibration method. It addresses the accuracy and repeatability of thermal manikins to accurately report heat loss, power and temperature. Without such a traceable standard, manufacturers and researchers will dispute differences in results from various thermal manikins. For this purpose, National Research Council Canada, Institute for Ocean Technology (NRC-IOT) constructed a calorimeter laboratory to house a full body water calorimeter transferred from Defence R&D Canada (DRDC). The design specifications of the calorimeter laboratory and water calorimeter are presented in this report. A submersible thermal manikin calibration method is proposed. The results show that the laboratory and the calorimeter meet all design specifications, specifically 1. The calorimeter stirring system was able to establish an isothermal condition within 10 minutes. 2. The stirring system does not generate more than 100 W of power over a 2-hour period. 3. Dye tests provided a visual means to assess and confirmed the stirring system performance. 4. Under regular control mode, the environmental chamber was able to maintain a user specified setpoint temperature to within ±0.1°C. 5. Under tracking control mode, the environmental chamber was able to maintain the air temperature at a fixed offset with respect to the water temperature in the calorimeter, which is specified by the user. 6. Using a 500W known heat source, it was demonstrated that the calorimeter could measure power accurate to within 1%. Using the calorimeter, the NEMO thermal manikin calibration was validated. The results show that the power reported by NEMO thermal manikin agrees with the calorimeter measured power to within 1% in both constant temperature and constant heat flux modes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.026 |
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".