The joint effects of person and situation factors on stress in spaceflight.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychologists can play an important role in spaceflight and exploration. Indeed, their input at four specific stages in spaceflight can help to ensure successful missions. Psychologists have a role to play in: 1) Selection; 2) Training; 3) Real or Simulated Space Missions; and 4) Post-Flight Problems. During selection, psychologists can provide guidelines as to the appropriate coping styles for reacting to mission-related stressors. During training, psychologists can help astronauts to plan for, and cope with, problems (e.g., group conflict). Training in social sensitivity, or in specific coping styles (i.e., to be high in task-oriented coping), would be beneficial so that astronauts are able to deal with unforeseen problems. Task-oriented coping is related to control and efficiency, and reduces stress and anxiety. Emotion-oriented coping relates to anxiety for controllable situations, and task-oriented coping is most efficacious. A primary role for psychologists would be the investigation of what problems could arise from living with others in a limited space and for long periods of times. As such, investigations into group dynamics, physical and psychological stress caused by such an environment, and the lack of normal ways to deal with these problems should all be considered. It is also clear that the impact of spaceflight on an individual does not end with physical re-entry. On the contrary, the astronaut will also have to make a psychological post-flight "re-entry" readjustment to life on Earth. Psychologists have an important role to play during all four stages of the space program, especially in regards to person by situation interactions. That is, space is a novel environment for human beings, and we need to investigate how we can better improve the fit between astronauts and space situational stressors. Not only are person by situation interactions relevant for each of the four stages discussed above, but each of the stages interacts with one another bidirectionally and even multidirectionally.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".