MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735140759 · doi:10.4050/f-0071-2015-10231

Increased Industry Safety Through Education Technology

2015· article· en· W2735140759 on OpenAlexaff
Clyde Vasey, Zekiel Fialho, Mike Gralish, Larry Wormington

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsBell Helicopter Textron (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety is important in the daily operations of any business, but in the aviation industry, it is paramount. Because each mission, whether critical or routine, relies so heavily on a safe flight environment, pilot and maintenance training must meet the highest educational standards available. To accomplish this, aviation training facilities have to find instructional methods that mimic, as closely as possible, actual flight and maintenance conditions. For practical training, actual aircraft are used for flight and maintenance instruction. For simulated practical training, full-flight simulators and high fidelity flight training devices (FTDs) are used. These methods, while highly effective, are also costly. Time and availability for such flight and simulator devices is also an issue. To train students in a cost-effective, timely manner, aviation industries demand a classroom-based solution. This paper explores a new approach to enhancing training effectiveness through education technology that increases student engagement and retention in the classroom. By using a 3D interactive software engine to build near photo-realistic aircraft system models, the classroom training experience is greatly enhanced, allowing students to learn theory-based aircraft information in a virtual environment. An engaged student learns the material and retains it at a higher cognitive level. This retention leads to safer, more professionally trained pilots and maintainers.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207