MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402065546 · doi:10.1177/10711813241260681

Navigating Simulator Sickness: The Effect of Flight Maneuvers in Fixed-Base Flight Simulators

2024· article· en· W4402065546 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudia Martin Calderon, Junhan Bae, Shi Cao, Michael Barnett‐Cowan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsFlight simulatorSimulationSimulator sicknessAeronauticsMotion sicknessBase (topology)Computer scienceEngineeringPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flight simulator sickness (SS) is a well-known phenomenon in aviation training, which can impact the safety and effectiveness of pilot training programs. Identifying and characterizing which flight maneuvers result in increased SS symptoms could help instructors tailor training to increase pilot retention and potentially improve training. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of different flight maneuvers on SS in a fixed-base simulator (ALSIM AL250). Our results indicate that a flight session with more intense flight maneuvers (landing with wind and taxiing) resulted in an increase in sickness symptoms (Total Sickness [ p = .012] and Oculomotor Disturbance [ p = 0.035] of the SSQ) compared to no changes after a session with less intense flight maneuvers (steep turn). These results demonstrate a need to explore which flight maneuvers are more likely to result in increased sickness symptoms and its effects on training and retention of student pilots.

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207