Airsickness Desensitisation for the Canadian Forces - A Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airsickness is associated with other forms of motion sickness. It is a common occurrence among aircrew trainees; the problem is most acute in the early stages of training. The identification of an alternative to pharmacological treatment of airsickness for individuals regularly exposed to provocative environments while carrying out skilled or potentially hazardous tasks, is an important issue. Airsickness desensitisation has been proposed and employed by various nations as the program of choice for prevention of airsickness during early training. With the newly acquired trainers (Harvard II and the Hawk) in the Canadian Forces (CF), it is important at this time to re-evaluate the CF airsickness desensitisation program at 15 Wing. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide a scientific update on habituation to nauseogenic motion stimuli, to clarify a number of misconceptions and to provide a recommendation on an improved airsickness desensitisation program based on current valid scientific information. A number of vestibular screening tests on oculomotor and postural function that could be achieved with relative ease are proposed as part of the initial assessment for potential pathological predisposition to airsickness. It is also recommended that the current biofeedback and relaxation therapy be deleted. Ground based desensitisation should be reduced to a 2-3 week period of twice daily exposure to Coriolis stimuli of progressively increasing intensity. This is followed immediately by 10-15 hours of exposure in which incremental habituation to the more complex and provocative manoeuvres are carried out. Quantitative evaluation of the subject's progress for both ground based and in flight desensitisation is recommended. An alternative ground based desensitisation procedure using the human centrifuge is proposed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.012 |
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".