MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1557521848

Human-centered systems analysis of aircraft separation from adverse weather

2004· dissertation· en· W1557521848 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueDSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGlenn Research CenterMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSeparation (statistics)AeronauticsEnvironmental scienceAdverse weatherMeteorologyEngineeringComputer scienceGeographyMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adverse weather significantly impacts the safety and efficiency of flight operations. Weather information plays a key role in mitigating the impact of adverse weather on flight operations by supporting air transportation decision-makers’ awareness of operational and mission risks. The emergence of new technologies for the surveillance, modeling, dissemination and presentation of information provides opportunities for improving both weather information and user decision-making. In order to support the development of new weather information systems, it is important to understand this complex problem thoroughly. This thesis applies a human-centered systems engineering approach to study the problem of separating aircraft from adverse weather. The approach explicitly considers the role of the human operator as part of the larger operational system. A series of models describing the interaction of the key elements of the adverse aircraft-weather encounter problem and a framework that characterizes users’ temporal decisionmaking were developed. Another framework that better matches pilots’ perspectives compared to traditional forecast verification methods articulated the value of forecast valid time according to a spacetime reference frame. The models and frameworks were validated using focused interviews with ten national subject matter experts in aviation meteorology or flight operations. The experts unanimously supported the general structure of the models and made suggestions on clarifications and refinements which were integrated in the final models. In addition, a cognitive walk-through of three adverse aircraft-weather encounters was conducted to provide an experiential perspective on the aviation weather problem. The scenarios were chosen to represent three of the most significant aviation weather hazards: icing, convective weather and low ceilings and visibility. They were built on actual meteorological information and the missions and pilot decisions were synthesized to investigate important weather encounter events. The cognitive walkthrough and the models were then used to identify opportunities for improving weather information and training. Of these, the most significant include opportunities to address users’ four-dimensional trajectorycentric perspectives and opportunities to improve the ability of pilots to make contingency plans when dealing with stochastic information.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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