MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281693558 · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103809

A data-driven framework for assessing soldier performance, health, and survivability

2022· article· en· W4281693558 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew P. Mavor, Kristina M. Gruevski, Gwyneth B. Ross, Mohammadhossein Akhavanfar, Allison L. Clouthier, Linda Bossi, Thomas Karakolis, Ryan B. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Ergonomics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivabilityProcurementBattlefieldAdversaryComputer scienceOperations researchArmourAeronauticsComputer securityOperations managementEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Presented is a framework that uses pattern classification methods to incrementally morph whole-body movement patterns to investigate how personal (sex, military experience, and body mass) and load characteristics affect the survivability tradespace: performance, musculoskeletal health, and susceptibility to enemy action. Sixteen civilians and 12 soldiers performed eight military-based movement patterns under three body-borne loads: ∼5.5 kg, ∼22 kg, and ∼38 kg. Our framework reduces dimensionality using principal component analysis and uses linear discriminant analysis to classify groups and morph movement patterns. Our framework produces morphed whole-body movement patterns that emulate previously published changes to the survivability tradespace caused by body-borne loads. Additionally, we identified that personal characteristics can greatly impact the tradespace when carrying heavy body-borne loads. Using our framework, military leaders can make decisions based on objective information for armour procurement, employment of armour, and battlefield performance, which can positively impact operational readiness and increase overall mission success.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied ErgonomicsSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207