MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851107308 · doi:10.1177/1557234x15573949

The Case for Addressing Operator Fatigue

2015· article· en· W1851107308 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne F. Duffy, Kirsi‐Marja Zitting, Charles A. Czeisler

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian Network
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsSleep deprivationVigilance (psychology)Poison controlPsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionSuicide preventionApplied psychologyOccupational safety and healthSleep restrictionAeronauticsCognitive psychologyEngineeringMedical emergencyPsychiatryMedicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep deficiency, which can be caused by acute sleep deprivation, chronic insufficient sleep, untreated sleep disorders, disruption of circadian timing, and other factors, is endemic in the U.S., including among professional and non-professional drivers and operators. Vigilance and attention are critical for safe transportation operations, but fatigue and sleepiness compromise vigilance and attention by slowing reaction times and impairing judgment and decision-making abilities. Research studies, polls, and accident investigations indicate that many Americans drive a motor vehicle or operate an aircraft, train or marine vessel while drowsy, putting themselves and others at risk for error and accident. In this chapter, we will outline some of the factors that contribute to sleepiness, present evidence from laboratory and field studies demonstrating how sleepiness impacts transportation safety, review how sleepiness is measured in laboratory and field settings, describe what is known about interventions for sleepiness in transportation settings, and summarize what we believe are important gaps in our knowledge of sleepiness and transportation safety.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of Human Factors and ErgonomicsSame topicSleep and Work-Related FatigueFrench-language works237,207