MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545106310 · doi:10.1027/2192-0923/a000102

Cognitive Factors Mediate the Relation Between Age and Flight Path Maintenance in General Aviation

2016· article· en· W2545106310 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Van Benthem, Chris M. Herdman

Bibliographic record

VenueAviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionAviationEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performancePsychologyPath analysis (statistics)Flexibility (engineering)Cognitive flexibilityCognitive skillAviation safetyGeneral aviationWorking memoryAeronauticsCognitive psychologyComputer scienceEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Identifying pilot attributes associated with risk is important, especially in general aviation where pilot error is implicated in most accidents. This research examined the relationship of pilot age, expertise, and cognitive functioning to deviations from an ideal circuit trajectory. In all, 54 pilots, of varying age, flew a Cessna 172 simulator. Cognitive measures were obtained using the CogScreen-AE ( Kay, 1995 ). Older age and lower levels of expertise and cognitive functioning were associated with significantly greater flight path deviations. The relationship between age and performance was fully mediated by a cluster of cognitive factors: speed and working memory, visual attention, and cognitive flexibility. These findings add to the literature showing that age-related changes in cognition may impact pilot performance.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAviation Psychology and Applied Human FactorsSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207