MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401805147 · doi:10.4050/f-0080-2024-1199

Comparison of Pilot Workload between Integrated Reality In-Flight Simulation and Flight Test of Helicopter Landings on a Frigate

2024· article· en· W4401805147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Perry Comeau, Andrew Law

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsWorkloadFlight testFlight simulatorTest (biology)SimulationComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringMarine engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) has recently developed an Integrated Reality In-flight Simulator (IRIS) that allows helicopter pilots to fly the NRC's Bell 412 Advanced Systems Research Aircraft (ASRA) while wearing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) virtual reality headset. IRIS is the first airborne simulator of its kind that combines COTS virtual reality and Fly-By-Wire (FBW) synthetic turbulence for helicopter operations. Simulations are not exact replications of actual environments; therefore, a methodology of comparing pilot workload with respect to an analysis of the differences between the simulated and actual environments is required. During a recent flight trial, NRC validated the effectiveness of IRIS to replicate a pilot's workload during ship landing tasks using these workload scales. During the analysis, NRC took initial steps in developing methodologies to examine environmental characteristics and then correlate them to an associated pilot workload. The work also included the initial development of methodologies to analyze pilot workload and alternative prediction methods that better map subjective or quantitative pilot workload data to DIPES.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207