MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1617778950 · doi:10.56105/cjsae.v22i2.971

"Have you got it?" Overcoming the futility of training mariners about collision regulations

2010· article· en· W1617778950 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMaritime Security and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollisionTraining (meteorology)GerontologyPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyMedical educationComputer securityComputer scienceMedicineGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite aids to navigation, there are too many collisions involving deep-sea ships, tugs, workboats, fishing vessels, and recreational boats. Nautical trainers claim to teach collision regulations (COLREGS), but training has little to do with learning. Most mariners have only a surface (or no) understanding of maritime "rules of the road." In British Columbia, collisions have caused multiple fatalities and traumatized rescuers. Lecturing is not a good way to prevent collisions at sea. The British Columbia Institute of Technology's Marine Campus is committed to "excellence in training." The author reflects on his experience as a student there and suggests the institution adopt less authoritarian and more participatory, engaging, and respectful ways of fostering learning. Teaching COLREGS is as much a theoretical as a practical problem. Marine institutes should back away from training, put less focus on teaching and more on having people learn together. Résumé Malgré les aides à la navigation, il y a trop de collisions impliquant les navires de haute mer, remorqueurs, bateaux de travail, de pêche et les bateaux de plaisance. Les formateurs nautiques prétendent quʼils enseignent les règlements pour prévenir les abordages (COLREGS), mais la formation a peu à voir avec lʼapprentissage. La plupart des gens de mer n’ont quʼune compréhension en surface (ou même aucune compréhension) des “règles de la route” maritimes. En Colombie-Britannique, les collisions ont causé plusieurs morts ainsi que de nombreux sauveteurs traumatisés. Le cours magistral nʼ’est pas la bonne façon de prévenir les collisions en mer. Le campus marin de l’Institut de Technology de la Colombie-Britannique sʼest engagé à offrir une formation dʼexcellence. Lʼauteur reflète sur son expérience en tant quʼ’étudiant auprès de lʼInstitut et suggère à lʼInstitut dʼadopter des méthodes moins autoritaires, plus participatives, engageantes et respectueuses afin de favoriser un meilleur apprentissage. Lʼenseignement des règlements pour prévenir les abordages est un problème théorique autant que pratique. Les instituts maritimes devraient prendre du recul face à la formation, placer moins dʼ’importance sur lʼenseignement et mettre plutôt lʼemphase sur le fait que les gens doivent apprendre ensemble.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it