Human Factors Evaluation of Prototype Visor Attachment Sub-systems and Review of Alternative Visor Designs (Evaluation des Facteurs Humains lies aux Prototypes de sous - Systemes de Fixation de Visiere et Critique de Concepts Alternatifs de Visieres)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Humansystems was tasked by DRDC Toronto (formerly DCIEM) to undertake a Human Factors (HF) controlled trial to evaluate the new Visor Attachment Sub-System (VASS) design and gather additional input to support the development of the Ballistic Visor Statement of Requirement (SOR). A three-day field trial was undertaken at CFB Winnipeg over the period of October 6 - 8 1997. Thirteen regular force infantry soldiers completed a battery of human factors tests while wearing up to four different Visor Attachment Sub-System (VASS)/Visor conditions in a repeated measures design: two 1/2 face visors and a full face visor with the new VASS, and one half face visor with the old VASS. All tests included a helmet alone or no VASS condition as a baseline control. During each test, the order of conditions was balanced among participants. Human factors tests included assessments of attachment, usability, performance of select obstacle and battle tasks, marching, equipment, vehicle and clothing compatibility clash, and maintainability. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and HF observer assessments. Weapons and equipment compatibility and durability were ranked as the most important criteria for VASS design, with weapons and equipment compatibility, and visual capability as the most important visor criteria. For compatibility, there were no significant differences between the VASS designs and considerable clash observed and reported for visor compatibility with the C4 mask for all visor conditions. Most participants were unable to acquire a sight picture with the full face visor while almost all participants were able to achieve a sight picture with the full face visor. Several visual and thermal attributes of the visors, attached to both VASS systems, were rated as Borderline to Barely Unacceptable: field of view, visual distortion, thermal comfort, and ventilation/fogging.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".