Gaze Behavior of Spotters During an Air-to-Ground Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to develop methods for evaluating the gaze behaviors of spotters during air-to-ground search and to compare field-derived measures with previous lab results. Secondary aims were to assess adherence to a prescribed scan path, evaluate search effectiveness, and determine the predictors of task success. BACKGROUND: Crashed aircraft must be located quickly to minimize loss of life, often requiring visual search from the air. METHOD: Eye movements were measured in 10 volunteer spotters while they searched from the air for ground targets. Visual acuity, contrast levels, and performance on a lab-based search task were also measured. RESULTS: Results were similar to those of previous lab-based studies of air-to-ground search. Task success could be predicted best from a combination of gaze and laboratory variables, and as in previous research, experience was not one of them. CONCLUSIONS: In both lab and field research, performance is poor. Improvements in air search and rescue success will depend upon improvements in training, the refinement of scan tactics, changes to the task methods or environment, or modifications to parameters of the search exercise. APPLICATION: Spotters were unable to reliably search their assigned area, which has implications for the current search training program and in-the-air protocol.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".