A portable calorimeter of the calibrations of thermal manikins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to expanding activities in remote, cold environments such as resource development in the Arctic and new polar cruise routes, measurement of the thermal protection of garments and shelters is becoming critical to ensure the safety of crews and passengers in extreme conditions. Thermal manikins offer an alternative to the ethics of human subject testing; however, some manikin results have disagreed in a recent round-robin test. The source of the inconsistency between manikins could be methodological or calibration. Inconsistent measurements dilute the argument for using manikins in place of human subjects. Since manikins are not mass-produced and a variety of designs are in use, a calibration tool is needed to make manikin data credible and prove equivalence to human subject testing. Calibration by means of a standard clothing set can demonstrate consistency among manikins but not absolute accuracy. To facilitate the calibration of manikins in many locations, there is need for a portable calibration system. The objective of this work is to develop a portable air calorimeter to test thermal manikins in their native environment (i.e. local control chambers, methods and equipment) with a theoretical accuracy of close to 1%. The calorimeter houses the manikin in a sealed air chamber stirred with a small fan to prevent stagnation and removes heat using water flow through aluminum tubing encased in sheet aluminum walls. The heat lost by the manikin is calculated from the temperature rise in the water and the mass flow rate. Accuracy is achieved by minimizing extraneous heat transfer with vacuum-insulated panels and a calibrated mass flowmeter (±0.2 g/s) and paired thermistors (± 0.01°C). The calorimeter will be calibrated against a standard before each use. The calorimeter is designed for shipping complete with the accessories (pump-reservoir system) and to operate inside a variety of facilities around the world, relying on universal power supplies, minimal set-up and only distilled water added by the user. The calorimeter is sized to fit a wide profile of the manikins currently in use in their own environmental control chamber.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".