An experimental comparison on the effectiveness of various levels of simulator fidelity on ab initio pilot training
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent advances in technology use for education and training, the approach to pilot training over the past several decades has largely remained unchanged. Student pilots complete their training in actual aircraft, with very few flight hours conducted in flight training devices. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of various levels of simulator fidelity on ab initio pilot training. Thirty student pilots were invited to train using a virtual reality simulator, desktop simulator, or flight training device. Performance was evaluated using a modified Transport Canada Flight Test Guide alongside the NASA Task Load Index, Subjective Stress Scale, and Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, giving insight into mental workload, stress, and experience of simulator sickness, respectively. Findings show potential for virtual reality and desktop simulators regarding training procedural tasks; however, trainees must be aware of the limitations virtual reality and desktop simulators have concerning the training of aircraft handling tasks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it