Life raft entry from water: effect of strength, tallness, and weight burden in men and women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recurring failure of survivors of accidental water immersion to self-board a life raft prompted us to quantify the requisite physical attributes for successful self-boarding for predictive purposes. METHODS: There were 24 men and 24 women (18 to 52 yr) who attempted to self-board an inflated double-tube life raft using ladder, ramp, and over-the-side (OTS) entry methods while wearing a lifejacket in warm, calm water. The OTS method was also tested under weight-bearing conditions to determine the subject's 'reserve' capacity (i.e., maximum additional load capacity). RESULTS: Out of the 24 men, 22 successfully boarded the life raft, as did 17 out of the 24 women, using all methods of entry, and their reserve capacities ranged from 2 to 23% of body mass. Men reported lower efforts of exertion and were faster than women when using the ladder or boarding OTS without weights. There were no gender differences in these measures for the ramp and weighted OTS methods of entry. Strength and tallness were positive attributes for boarding the life raft using the ladder and OTS methods of entry, but not when using the ramp, which was the easiest and fastest entry method to execute. CONCLUSIONS: Men were more successful in boarding the life raft OTS (approximately 90%) compared with women (approximately 70%), but the difference was less pronounced for the ladder and ramp entry methods. The subjects' limited reserve capacities suggest that heavy layers of wet clothing and/or loss of muscle strength can easily compromise an individual's ability to self-board a life raft.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".