MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7003512458

Redefining CRM

2005· article· en· W7003512458 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresource Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrew resource managementCrewResource (disambiguation)Line managementMaritime industryQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent revision (120-51E, dated 1/22/04) to the Crew Resource Management Training Advisory Circular failed to provide a specific definition of CRM. This void is an issue with those who agree with Montaigne when he observed “No wind favors the sailing ship without a destined port.” Since its inception over twenty five years ago, CRM has undergone considerable evolution and the industry now finds itself in the seventh or eighth “Generation” of CRM training. Interestingly, in the very first Advisory Circular (120-51A) the following statement was made: “The essence of CRM training is to reduce error in the cockpit.” In spite of that specific focus, during the last quarter of a century, CRM training has been whatever the program developer wanted it to be and the result has included such diverse subjects as Post Traumatic Stress, Security, Unruly Passengers, Scheduling Issues, and Uniform Codes. The original definition of CRM as “The effective utilization of all available resources including liveware, hardware and software, to achieve safe and efficient flight operations.” was a worthy “goal” which unfortunately was more theoretical than practical; and no doubt contributed to why the current AC has no specific definition. Safety and efficiency do not always go hand in hand and therein lies the rub. It is time the industry put the practical side of the issue first and then back that up with theory. With that in mind, I make the observation that the industry has failed abysmally to take advantage of the huge resource of line pilot experience. Line pilots who achieves tens of thousands of hours accident and incident free has developed their own “bag of tricks” to stay out of trouble. Academicians, management pilots, and even union members, do NOT adequately represent the line pilot. With that in mind, I offer the following NEW and specific definition of CRM: “Cockpit Resource Management is the comprehensive utilization of all available resources including people, equipment and procedures, to attempt to get the job done correctly while staying out of trouble.” There are an infinite number of ways to do this and each annual recurrent training should address some of those techniques. GAIN, ASAP, Line Pilot Reports, FAA violations, Accident and Incident Reports, and the ASRS reporting system are all excellent starting point to gather these techniques. Too much of that data is simply NOT making it to the cockpit. The industry must come to grips with the fact that with each new technological improvement, each new aircraft design and each now operational improvement, more challenges are being faced by the line pilot and CRM training is one way to aid the line pilot in coping with these challenges. Consequently, CRM training remains a journey and NOT a destination.

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 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.168 · 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