MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385297854 · doi:10.1080/22423982.2023.2240572

Introduction: Training is more important than technology (for performance in the cold)

2023· article· en· W4385297854 on OpenAlexaff
Karl E. Friedl, Henriette Hasselstrøm, Boris Kingma, Arne Johan Norheim, Tommi Ojanen, Wendy Sullivan‐Kwantes, Hilde K. Teien, Graham White

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)The arcticAeronauticsCold warArcticComputer scienceCold climateHuman healthOperations researchPhase (matter)Engineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering ethicsPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringMedicineMeteorologyGeographyEnvironmental healthEcologyOceanographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After more than 50 years of studying soldiers in the cold, we are well past the phase of defining the unique problems; the research requirements are known but the solutions have been slow in coming. This requires iterative testing of proposed lab-based solutions with soldiers in the real environment. Representing a renewed effort to produce and implement solutions to human biomedical challenges in Arctic operations, this journal supplement highlights presentations from a three-day NATO Human Factors and Medicine panel-sponsored symposium in Washington DC in October 2022. While technology can certainly aid soldiers in extreme environments, it is ultimately training that is the most important factor for ensuring optimal performance and survival. By investing in the development of specialized Arctic forces training and implementing new solutions to protect their health and performance, we can ensure success in the coldest and harshest of environments.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207