I. Preparing for a Physiological Air War: Survey No. 1 by the Committee on Aviation Medicine of Aero Medical Research Facilities Available in America (12 Nov – 1 Dec 1940)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
At its first meeting, 23 Oct 1940, the Committee on Aviation Medicine (CAM) was tasked with making “…a survey of the present status of the medical and physiological problems pertaining to aviation…[and to] advise regarding the correlation and coordination of such research undertakings as are going forward in various government labs and flying fields, as well as in civilian labs and commercial aviation units. In addition the Committee should suggest the inauguration and development of new studies and investigative projects pertaining to the biological aspects of aviation and necessary to the national defense.” The CAM was comprised of Dr. E.F. DuBois, CAM Chairman (Cornell U) and members Drs. C.K. Drinker (Harvard U), J.F. Fulton (Yale U), W.R. Miles (Yale U) and E.M. Landis (U Va). The CAM and two USN liaison officers (Cdr. J.R. Poppen, Capt. L.E. Griffis) traveled by air from Washington D.C. to eight sites during 12 Nov – 1 Dec 1940: Langley Field; Norfolk Naval Air Base; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the Aircraft Carriers Wasp & Ranger; the Pensacola Naval Air Station and School of Aviation Medicine; San Diego Naval Air Base, and the Carrier Saratoga; Wright Field, Aero Medical Research Unit, Dayton; and the Banting Institute and Eglinton Labs, Toronto, Canada. The CAM's report to the National Research Council (NAS Archives: CAM Bulletin, pp. 52–96) made 20 recommendations to improve preparedness for a high‐altitude, high‐speed air war. They recognized that to date, aero medical research had lagged far behind development of aircraft. The limiting factor in flight operations was the pilot's physiology. Larger and better labs were needed at Wright Field, Randolph Field, Pensacola and Washington. Aero medical research should be expedited in civilian labs through immediate federal funding. Research projects the CAM deemed of urgent importance included: development of a suitable O 2 breathing apparatus and pressurized aircraft cabins, with more studies in altitude chambers and planes at high‐altitude; mitigation strategies for relief from flyer's aeroembolism and black‐out from G‐forces during acceleration; effects of anoxemia on production of cerebral edema and increased cerebrospinal fluid pressure; effects of protracted breathing of 100% O 2 ; psychological tests; fatigue; critical assessment of the Schneider test as a predictor of human efficiency; usefulness of the EEG in aviation medicine; studies of visual problems; problems of adequate clothing, particularly electrically‐heated clothing; and general studies of recreational and rest facilities at air stations. By 1942, the CAM had expanded into 7 subcommittees to oversee America's growing aero medical research program: Advisory Commission A (on the west coast near aircraft factories) to the CAM in Washington, Acceleration, Oxygen & Anoxia, Decompression Sickness, Visual Problems, Clothing, and Motion Sickness. Other general fields included adrenal physiology, the crash project, explosive decompression and pressure‐cabin aircraft, flying fatigue, injury to flying personnel by anti‐aircraft blasts, first aid aloft, rehabilitation program, and problem of securing information from operation squadrons. Support or Funding Information USF
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,015 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».