MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W644978315

The Effective Use of Computer-Based Training for In-Career Training and Knowledge Management

2006· article· en· W644978315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leland D Smithson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEngineering and Information Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Work (physics)PopulationPublic relationsMedical educationPolitical sciencePsychologyBusinessEngineeringSociologyMedicineGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes how the theme for the 2006 Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Annual Conference, “Transportation without Boundaries” creates an image in the minds of most transportation professionals of what the world would like to achieve within the next decade. However, the pragmatic side says there are institutional barriers that need to be breached and entrenched work cultures that must be changed in order to attain such a vision. A computer-based training (CBT) program is helping transportation agencies in Canada and the United States (US) transcend traditional training boundaries of time and distance to improve winter maintenance operations. The CBT is being used in both individual and conventional group training modes. It is most effective and efficient as an individual self-paced instruction program. Both the group and individual modes are structured to serve a wide range of learning abilities in the student population, including those with challenges such as dyslexia or hearing loss. In an effort to reach field forces more effectively, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) launched an Anti-Icing/Road Weather Information System (AI/RWIS) CBT into the winter maintenance training arena. Over 90% of US snow-belt states, three provinces and numerous cities in both countries have purchased the CBT. This paper describes how the AI/RWIS CBT is being utilized in both countries and underscores the valuable lessons learned from successful and not-so-successful deployments. It also shows how institutional barriers were breached, entrenched work cultures changed, and how recent research is being incorporated into the instructional content to ensure that training material stays current.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering and Information TechnologyFrench-language works237,207