MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966494829 · doi:10.4224/19547520

Effect of simulated training upon the performance of ice field navigation in a lifeboat (phase 2)

2011· report· en· W6966494829 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of NewfoundlandTransport Canada
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)AccreditationFlight trainingWaypointField (mathematics)Class (philosophy)Field trainingSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes a systematic study aimed at establishing the validation and accreditation of small craft simulator training as pertaining to Totally Enclosed Motor Propelled Survival Craft (TEMPSC) operation in ice. In other words, the study sets out to examine whether simulation based training can be adopted as a valid and reliable surrogate for standard physical lifeboat training. Full-scale field trials were conducted using a TEMPSC in an ice field at Paddy’s Pond, Newfoundland and Labrador. The objective of the study was to evaluate navigation through the ice field based on variables such as time through course, number of impacts, and nozzle executions. Naïve participants were assigned to groups: group one completed physical training in the classroom and in the TEMPSC in calm water (Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping, STCW), group two completed the same STCW training complemented by a classroom briefing on ice navigation, and group three completed the classroom briefing on ice navigation along with simulator training (full mission class “S” training simulator). Through a comparison of these groups it was hoped that the simulator-trained participants would perform just as well, or better, than those who underwent the physical training in terms of effectiveness and proficiency in ice field navigation. Overall, the results of this study suggest that simulator-trained participants were more likely to successfully navigate the TEMPSC through the ice field from waypoint to waypoint in comparison to those who received standard STCW training or the STCW training complemented by an ice briefing. Due to a small sample size, relatively large amounts of variance, and frequently changing environmental conditions, significant differences between the groups may have been masked. As such, further research may be required to conclusively validate small craft simulation training for operation in ice-covered waters.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207