MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W39730773

Technical Memorandum: A Training Evaluation Framework for PSTC MilObs Course

2009· article· en· W39730773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael H. Thomson, Andrea Brown, Courtney D. Tario, Barb Adams

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict Management and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorandumNegotiationSituational ethicsTeamworkSet (abstract data type)PsychologySituation awarenessMemorandum of understandingTraining (meteorology)Medical educationApplied psychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringLawMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : A current Applied Research Project (ARP) of DRDC-Toronto explores moral and ethical decision-making (MEDM) in Canadian Forces (CF) operations through field studies conducted at the Peace Support Training Centre (PSTC) in Kingston. CF personnel preparing to deploy as United Nations Military Observers undertake a number of training activities to enhance and develop their skills particular to Peace Support Operations (PSO). Through training, CF personnel receive intensive preparation, using a combination of classroom training and scenario-based training. One scenario-based exercise simulates a human rights violation - unarmed trainees attempt to negotiate the lives of civilians who are being verbally and physically abused by two armed police. Our program has examined a number of psychological processes during this scenario, such as aspects of moral intensity (physical proximity of the victim, MEFS I), emotion (MEFS II) and teamwork (MEFS III). The current work provides materials drawn from these studies. We created a set of PowerPoint slides that detail the most critical findings in the three field studies. Next, we generated a list of open- and closed-ended questions that trainees asked during the scenarios across all three studies (MEFS I, MEFS II, MEFS III). This list provides a means to underscore PSTC instruction to trainees, i.e., emphasizing the use of open-ended questions for eliciting situational awareness. Tables have been created that include specific examples of questions seeking both general and specific information. A separate table was constructed in which the common themes were extracted from the questions. The final section includes preparatory activities that lay the ground work for a PSTC training evaluation. Specifically, the evaluation is intended to explore how well the training translates into actual operational experience. This report concludes with possible next steps toward the evaluation and a plan for data collection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.008

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConflict Management and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207