MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W574125863 · doi:10.22488/okstate.18.100427

Exploring the Experiences of Pilots within Canadian General Aviation Flight Operations

2012· article· en· W574125863 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Suzanne K. Kearns, Jennifer E. Sutton

Bibliographic record

VenueCollegiate Aviation Review International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAeronauticsAviationEngineeringGeneral aviationAviation safetyAviation accidentFlight trainingTransport engineeringFlight simulatorAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pilots track flight hours as a quantitative measure of expertise. This linear development of expertise may apply to technical skills; however, it has been suggested that the development of nontechnical expertise is associated with operational exposure to threats and errors Within this framework, nontechnical skills may develop at different rates depending upon exposure to different threats and errors within specific types of flight operations. The present investigation examined the threats, errors, and nontechnical skills of pilots within Canadian general aviation operations. One hundred thirty narratives describing real-world scenarios were gathered from pilots with an online self-report Hangar Talk Survey (HTS). Several threats, errors, and nontechnical skills were significantly associated with specific types of operations. This suggests that the rate of nontechnical skill development may additionally be linked to the type of operation a pilot is involved in, rather than to the number of flight hours alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollegiate Aviation Review InternationalSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207