Culture and tension during an international space station simulation: results from SFINCSS '99.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper addresses the impact of cultural heterogeneity on interpersonal tension during multinational space missions. METHODS: Data were collected during SFINCSS '99, which simulated the living conditions on ISS. Three crews (n = 12) were confined in connected hyperbaric chambers. Group 1 was confined for 240 d, while Groups 2 and 3 were confined for 110 d. Group 1 was composed of four Russian subjects; Group 2 included three Russian subjects and one non-Russian subject; and Group 3 included Japanese, Russian, Austrian and Canadian subjects. Group 3 included the only female participant. Peer ratings, questionnaires and interviews assessed tension within and between crews, critical incidents and cultural factors impacting on crew interaction. RESULTS: Compared with Group 1, Group 3 evaluated their own group and the Mission Control more negatively. A conflict between Group 1 and 3 was reflected in mutual negative ratings after 1 mo. This situation resulted in an unplanned closure of the hatch between the chambers and in one subject leaving the study prematurely. Group 3 expressed dissatisfaction with mission support and interventions from outside personnel to resolve the interpersonal problems. The entrance of an international visiting crew was reported to alleviate tension between Groups 1 and 3. Language problems and different attitudes toward gender relations were factors identified as having a major impact on the inter-group relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The results may demonstrate some of the difficulties faced by crewmembers belonging to cultural minorities when operational control is in the hands of one national organization, as well as the need for countermeasures designed to address these problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".