Permanent Medical Grounding in Royal Canadian Air Force Pilots (2008–2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective registry study was to review the medical causes of RCAF pilot permanent grounding during the period 2008–2017 and to compare our findings to the previous study of 1978–1987 to determine if disease patterns had changed.METHODS: Material was obtained from the RCAF 1 Canadian Air Division Surgeon’s medical registry of military pilots. Anonymized data for permanently grounded pilots were classified by medical diagnosis, age, and training status.RESULTS: During the period 2008–2017, there were a total of 162 pilots permanently grounded, of which 110 were trained and 52 untrained.DISCUSSION: In comparison to the 1991 study, there has been a decrease in permanent groundings due cardiovascular disease, but an increase due to mental health conditions, musculoskeletal issues, and motion sickness.Haworth D, Gray G, Zoltenko R, Bashirzadeh AJ. Permanent medical grounding in Royal Canadian Air Force pilots (2008–2017). Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(11): 913–918.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".