Effects of caffeine on exercise performance and subsequent target detection and rifle marksmanship under simulated combat conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve reservists ingested 5.0 mg/kg of caffeine (C) or placebo (P) one hour before beginning a 2.5 h loaded march and 1.0 h sandbag wall construction task. Following exercise, participants were given a redose of 2.5 mg/kg of C or P. One hour postingestion, participants commenced a 2.5 h shooting session on a small arms trainer, which included friend-foe (FF) and vigilance (VIG) tasks. In total, four counterbalanced dose-redose experimental trials were conducted: PP, PC, CP, and CC. Performance measures during the shooting session included the number of shots taken (NS), engagement time (ET), and marksmanship. Results indicated that C did not affect exercise or shooting performance during the FF task. NS and ET improved with CC during the VIG task. In conclusion, C improves target detection and engagement speed during vigilance situations, but is not effective during more complex operations requiring dual task proficiency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".