Investigating the Validity of Previous Flying Experience, Both Actual and Simulated, in Predicting Initial and Advanced Military Pilot Training Performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the validity of cognitive ability, previous flying experience, and a simulation in predicting the job knowledge and flying performance of military pilots undergoing training. Archival data were analyzed for 300 Canadian pilot candidates who attempted entry-level military pilot training and 150 candidates who completed intermediate-level training on fixed-wing aircraft. Cognitive ability predicted aviation-related job knowledge but not flying performance at either early or later stages of flying performance. Both previous flying experience and the simulation predicted success in early flying performance but only the simulation predicted success at the more advanced levels of pilot training. Previous flying experience moderated the results from the simulation; the simulation was a much stronger predictor of advanced flying performance for those candidates with no previous flying experience. The results suggest developing different selection protocols for those candidates with previous flying experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it