MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W815426634

MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING OF THE EFFECTS OF WORK SCHEDULE AND JET LAG ON THE INFORMATION PROCESSING CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUAL PILOTS, PHASE 2

2001· article· en· W815426634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H Weinberg, G. N. C. Kenny

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman multitaskingLagAeronauticsTask (project management)Information processingInstrumentation (computer programming)Jet (fluid)Phase (matter)Data collectionComputer scienceSimulationEngineeringPsychologyStatisticsSystems engineeringCognitive psychologyMathematicsAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes a project to develop methods for providing airline pilots with a personalized index of their fatigue to allow them to monitor the state of their own readiness during flight. The first phase included a task analysis of the types of information processing required of pilots flying the Airbus 320 and Boeing 747. Electroencephalogram (EEG) instrumentation and software were designed to allow recording of gamma activity during flight. In addition, a laboratory study of gamma activity and multitasking (MT) during and after sleep deprivation was implemented to help interpret the data recorded in the air. The second phase involved EEG and MT data collection from ten pilots flying between Vancouver or Toronto and Europe or south-east Asia. Individual indexes of pilots were computed by combining the EEF and MT results. The data suggest the existence of important individual differences to the effect of jet lag on pilots. Recommendations for further research and development conclude the report.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207