MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327533898 · doi:10.1177/0013916515583551

Affective, Social, and Cognitive Outcomes During a 1-Year Wintering in Concordia

2015· article· en· W2327533898 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Nicolas, Peter Suedfeld, Karine Weiss, Marvin Gaudino

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitut Polaire Français Paul Emile VictorEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsCrewPsychologyAdaptation (eye)Psychological adaptationCognitionControl (management)Stress (linguistics)StressorSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyEngineeringAeronauticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated time patterns and the relationships between perceived stress, recovery, control, attention lapses, and defense mechanisms (DM) during a 12-month wintering in Concordia polar station with an international crew of 14 volunteers. This ICE (Isolated, Confined, Extreme) environment induced some stress, mainly in the social dimension and showed relationships (a) between DM and both stress and recovery and (b) between recovery and perceived control, highlighting the roles of DM and control in psychological adaptation. These results offer additional insights into the affective, social, and cognitive processes involved in adaptation. The findings suggest that preventive psychological countermeasures should be developed for crew members to counteract detrimental psychological outcomes and to improve adaptation to long-duration ICE situations such as planned human interplanetary space missions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and BehaviorSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207