An Assessment of the CF Submarine Watch Schedule Variants for Impact on Modeled Crew Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In support of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) investigating the October 2005 fire on board HMCS Chicoutirni, DRDC Toronto was asked to model crew cognitive effectiveness at the time of the fire and at the time of casualty evacuation approximately 28 hrs after the fire. The results of this modeling effort (based on sleep behavior estimates) suggested that our submariners were operating at significantly reduced levels of cognitive effectiveness. Therefore DRDC Toronto was tasked to conduct an at-sea trial, this time using real actigraphically-derived sleep data in order to more accurately model the impact of the watch schedule on crew cognitive effectiveness. Twenty-one submariners participated as subjects in this at-sea trial. Three of these subjects were non-watch-standers: Commanding Officer (CO), Coxswain (COXSN) and Chief Engine Room Artificer (CERA), 6 subjects were from the 1-in-2 back-watch, 6 subjects were from the 1-in-2 front-watch, and 6 subjects were from the 1-in-3 engineers' watch. The trial took place on a Canadian submarine during a 13-day transatlantic return to Halifax. All subjects wore wrist activity monitors (actigraphs) in order to measure their daily sleep patterns quantitatively. The subjects also maintained a daily activity and sleep log, and performed daily iterations of the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT). The modeled cognitive effectiveness was worse than the previous modeling efforts for Chicoutimi which used sleep behavior estimates. The activity and sleep log data indicated increasing difficulty arising from sleep and a decrease in subjective levels of `restedness' over days at sea. Alertness also decreased over days at sea. Each of the 1-in-2 front and back-watches were less `happy' than their 1-in-3 engineering watch counterparts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".