MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362575323 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15359

Exploring Latent Biometric Constructs in a Model Predicting Mental States of Aviators

2023· dissertation· en· W4362575323 on OpenAlexaff
Anya Pejemsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceCrewFlight trainingFlight simulatorSimulationAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-crew aircraft persistently have a high accident rate; these accidents are associated with high mental workload (MWL).The aviation industry would benefit from a passive MWL monitoring system that would predict flight performance.Passive biosensors offer an economical and non-intrusive method for indexing MWL.Many studies have overemphasized tonic data while ignoring phasic data.The present study explores the viability of a phasic data centered model in indexing MWL to predict flight performance.The study had non-pilots fly a simulator.Cardiovascular and epidermal data, objective and subjective MWL states, subjective reports of simulator sickness, and a variety of flight performance indicators were measured.The data were decomposed into several components to build formative latent variables that were pruned based on an objective MWL measure to then predict flight performance measures.The results indicate that phasic components explain more variance in flight performance than objective and subjective MWL and tonic data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207