MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Training-Related Stress and Performance in the Military

2022· book-chapter· en· W4288786496 on OpenAlexaff
Oshin Vartanian, Cathy Boscarino, Jerzy Jarmasz, Vlad Zotov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStressorBattlefieldPsychologyStress (linguistics)Training (meteorology)Psychological resilienceApplied psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Considerable research has focused on the effects of stress on the performance of military personnel on the battlefield. Less studied are the effects of stress on the performance of military personnel in the course of routine activities such as training. This chapter takes stock of stressors that impact learning and performance on a wide host of training-related activities, including simulated stress. This literature suggests a nuanced relationship between stress and performance in training, and highlights the moderating and mediating effects that social, contextual, and individual-differences factors exert on that relationship. Importantly, although training scenarios aim to mimic realistic levels of stress to develop resilience, it is critical that stress induced in the training environment does not surpass the regulatory abilities of the trainees to cause impairments in learning. Toward that end, we discuss regulatory mechanisms that can be engaged to manage the effect of stress on training-related performance, as well as novel findings from systems neuroscience on how the brain responds to the presence of acute stress.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStress Responses and Cortisol→French-language works237,207→