MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316653891 · doi:10.12985/ksaa.2022.30.3.117

The Effective Use of Basic Aviation Training Device (BATD) and the Analysis of Flight Training Effectiveness

2022· article· en· W4316653891 on OpenAlexaff
Dong Kwan Jang, Moonjin Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsInternational Civil Aviation Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCockpitFlight trainingFlight simulatorTraining (meteorology)Flight management systemAeronauticsAviationComputer scienceSimulationEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method to increase the effectiveness of flight training at a low cost by applying the correct flight training method to students without flight experience is a very important factor. BATD equipped with an extended display device enables the proper cross-check of external references and internal instruments by integrated flight instruction methods, enabling effective flight training in the initial stages. In addition, BATD employs the Cessna 172 model with Glass Cockpit to help make it easy to apply to actual flights. As a result of analyzing the effect of flight training through a survey of students who completed the BATD practice lecture, it was very helpful to understand the theories related to flight that they had already learned, and they responded that they could easily adapt to all flight subjects in additional FTD practice lectures. Therefore, a well-planned BATD practice lecture will be easy to adapt to real flight training, which will have significant effects in reducing time and cost.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Society for Aviation and AeronauticsSame topicManagement and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207