MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329497068 · doi:10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1102

The Military Learner: The Acceptance of New Training Technology for C-130 Aircrews

2016· article· en· W2329497068 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aviation Aeronautics and Aerospace · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Military Integration
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)AeronauticsPsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationEngineeringApplied psychologyMedicinePhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem in this qualitative embedded single-case study was that business and military organizations have shrinking budgets, which has caused conflicting priorities for training funds. This has forced training managers to develop alternative instructional programs to reduce costs, which sometimes means replacing people with technology. To be useful, the new technology must be accepted and used by learners. During military training, certain programs require learners to use a new technology despite the possible lack of acceptance of that technology. Researchers do not know how military learners accept new technology that is mandatory to use. The purpose of this case study was to understand how military learners use new technology by exploring the experiences of learners who have used a 360-degree training program. A purposeful sample of 18 participants who attend C-130 flight training was selected from a military base in the Southern United States. The study included structured and open-ended questions to explore learner experiences. The objectives were to describe how the learners accept new technology and describe how learners perceive the value of the training. The findings were that the participants have different learning styles, they take acceptance cues from their instructors, and they need technology to be easy to use. To reach a conclusion, this study applied the third version of the Technology Acceptance Model to a mandatory learning situation in a military context. The recommendations were that new technology should be developed for easy access; that instructors should employ all the support facilities necessary to use new technology; and that new technology should be easy to use to gain participant acceptance. Future recommendations are to expand qualitative studies of technology acceptance in mandatory training situations for business and industry.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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