MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989753152 · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap1603_2

Mode Monitoring and Call-Outs: An Eye-Tracking Study of Two-Crew Automated Flight Deck Operations

2006· article· en· W1989753152 on OpenAlex
C. M. Bjorklund, Jens Alfredson, Sidney Dekker

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aviation Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsCockpitCrewMode (computer interface)Eye trackingAeronauticsFlight management systemEngineeringAviation safetySituation awarenessSimulationAutomationPoint (geometry)Flight simulatorAviationComputer scienceAerospace engineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mode awareness has been suggested as a critical factor in safe operations of automated aircraft. This study investigated mode awareness by measuring eye-point-of-gaze of both pilots during simulated commercial flights, while recording call-outs and tracking aircraft performance. Hardly any crew follows manufacturer-or air carrier procedures on mode monitoring and call-outs. However, this does not seem to have a negative effect on flight path or safety. Crews exhibit a proliferation of strategies to keep track of automation status and behavior, with little reliance on the flight mode annunciations of the primary flight display. The data confirms the limitations of current flight mode annunciator designs, and suggest that mode awareness is a more complex phenomenon then what can be captured by measuring EPOG and communication alone.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.447 · 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