MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401045691 · doi:10.1111/jcal.13037

Flight emotions unleashed: Navigating training phases and difficulty levels in simulated flying

2024· article· en· W4401045691 on OpenAlexafffund
Alejandra Ruiz‐Segura, Andrew Law, Sion Jennings, Alain Bourgon, Ethan Churchill, Susanne P. Lajoie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsInternational Civil Aviation OrganizationNational Research Council CanadaMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Flight trainingPsychologyFlight simulatorApplied psychologyAeronauticsCognitive psychologyComputer scienceSimulationEngineeringMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Flying accuracy is influenced by pilots' affective reactions to task demands. A better understanding of task‐related emotions and flying performance is needed to enhance pilot training. Objective Understand pilot trainees' performance and emotional dynamics (intensity, frequency and variability) based on training phase and difficulty level in a flight simulator. Methods Twenty‐three volunteers performed basic flight manoeuvres. Trials were divided into three phases: Introduction (trials 1–7), session A (trials 8–15) and session B (trials 16–22). Three task difficulty levels were implemented (low, medium and high). Flying performance was evaluated using root mean square error (RMSE) and expert ratings. Emotional intensity was inferred from physiological (electrodermal activity) and behavioural (facial expressions) emotional responses. Emotional variability was calculated to understand fluctuations among multiple emotions. Emotional responses were mapped into task‐relevant emotions, like sadness with boredom, and fear with anxiety. Results and Conclusions The most frequent facial expressions neutral, anger and surprise. Neutral and anger were interpreted as deep focus states. Surprise was likely a response to unexpected events. Flying performance and emotional dynamics varied across training phases and difficulty levels. During introduction, performance was less accurate, and emotions were less frequent. During session A, performance improved while participants experienced more physiological arousal and emotional variability. During session B, performance was the most accurate. In high‐difficulty tasks, performance was the least accurate, participants expressed emotions with more frequency, more variability and higher physiological arousal. Future studies can use simulated flying tasks for trainees to familiarize with their emotional reactions to task demands expecting to improve training outcomes.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted LearningSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207