Development of a Human Behavior and Performance Training Curriculum for ISS Astronauts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper will describe the DACUM process and summarize the core competencies that were agreed upon, internationally, as important for ISS astronauts. The paper will further discuss the ongoing work being completed by the subgroup, Human Behaviour and Performance Training Working Group, including defining the competencies and behavioural markers. Finally, an overview of remaining work will be provided, including determining which competencies require formal training and which require no formal training, developing training objectives, sequencing the training, and establishing how to assess training effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Designing a common set of goals for behavioural training has been the desire of the SHBP WG since its inception in 1998. This group, along with training specialists and astronauts, are making great strides toward defining these competencies. The road ahead will be exceedingly challenging as training objectives are defined and a training flow is proposed to the MCOP; with proposed ISS crews increasing to six people in the near future, such enhanced behavioural training may be all the more essential for mission success.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it