MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978031001 · doi:10.1177/154193120705100409

A Dynamic Model Balancing User Control and Workload in Automatic and Adaptive Systems

2007· article· en· W1978031001 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley Roberts, Avi Parush

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionUser interfaceAutomationAdaptation (eye)User interface designUser modelingInformation overloadInterface (matter)Control (management)Distributed computingUser experience designArtificial intelligenceOperating systemWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current interactive systems are criticized for having complex interfaces that overload users with information. Two possible solutions to manage overload are automatic interfaces that augment user capabilities, and user-controlled systems that provide support. These two types of interfaces introduce a trade-off: On the one hand, automatic interfaces alleviate workload but create performance problems associated with the absence of control. On the other hand, user-controlled interfaces afford users more control, which may come with additional workload. Based on the analysis of adaptive user interfaces and automation, a model is proposed where automatic and user interface adaptation are in a multidimensional and continuum-based space, allowing for modelling dynamic changes to the roles the human and machine play at various stages of interaction.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207