The data on psychological adaptation during polar winter-overs in Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data presented in this article relate to the research article entitled "assessing psychological adaptation during polar winter-overs: The isolated and confined environments questionnaire (ICE-Q)" [1]. These data were acquired in order to develop a standardized instrument - the ICE-Q - designed to assess psychological adaptation within isolated, confined, and extreme environments. A total of 140 winterers from several sub-Antarctic (Amsterdam, Crozet, Kerguelen) and Antarctic (Concordia, Terre Adélie) stations voluntarily participated. Data were collected by multiple self-report questionnaires including a wide variety of well-known and validated questionnaires to record the winterers' responses to polar stations. Data were gathered across two or three winter seasons within each of the 5 polar stations to ensure sufficiently large sample. From four to seven measurement time along a one-year period were proposed to the participants, resulting in 479 momentary assessments. Results of exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, exploratory structural equation modelling, reliability analyses, and test-retest provided strong evidence for the construct validity of the ICE-Q (19-item 4-factor questionnaire). The four factors were social, emotional, occupational and physical. Future studies would examine the dynamic of psychological adaptation in isolated, confined and/or extreme environments during polar missions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".