Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, the Canadian Forces (CF) transitioned to a new anthropometric selection standard for pilots. The new standard bases acceptance and rejection on whether individuals are physically compatible with the cockpits of all current aircraft; the previous standard was not aircraft specific. As a result, cockpit compatibility assessments are not currently available for student pilots who were admitted under the previous standard. In July 2007, a pilot slated to train on the Hawk suspected he was too large for the cockpit. This prompted a series of events including an anthropometric assessment of current Hawk pilots and a review of the screening process and limits currently in place. Ten pilots from 15 Wing and an external pilot were recruited to participate in a field trial designed to assess the shin clearance limits of the Hawk Mk 115. Clearance measurements between the shins and the main instrument panel were taken with the seat completely down or up, in summer and winter clothing. The minimum distance between the shins and the instrument panel was recorded with the rudder pedals in neutral and full left positions. In addition, the largest subject was assessed in the Hawk ejection trainer. The objective was twofold: 1) to observe the effect of seat movement on shin clearance and 2) to determine whether the trainer could be used as a cockpit compatibility assessment tool. The results indicate that there is scope for a small increase in the current anthropometric limits with respect to shin clearance. However, the significance of this increase in terms of population accommodation depends on which option is retained. The recommended option would provide a risk-balanced limit that accepts a reduced ejection clearance zone between the knees and the rearview mirrors. This would increase accommodation by about 2.5%. It was also determined that the ejection simulator was not sufficiently similar to the actual cockpit to be used as a cockpit compatibility assessment tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".