MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996661567 · doi:10.1109/dasc.2010.5655354

Airspace structure, future ATC systems, and controller complexity reduction

2010· article· en· W1996661567 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Histon, Lishuai Li, R. John Hansman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsController (irrigation)Air traffic controlComputer scienceTask (project management)Key (lock)Computational complexity theoryReduction (mathematics)Cognitive complexityControl engineeringControl (management)CognitionEngineeringArtificial intelligenceSystems engineeringMathematicsComputer securityAlgorithmAerospace engineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airspace structure is a key factor influencing controller cognitive complexity as it forms a basis for abstractions simplifying controller mental models of air traffic situations. In evaluating the feasibility of new Concepts of Operations (Con-Ops), it is important to consider the effects of changes to the structure of the system and its related impacts on controller cognitive complexity. Examples of key cognitive complexity considerations for future ATC systems are identified by examining three opportunities to modify airspace structure. A part task experiment was used to further investigate the impact of one of those opportunities on controller cognitive complexity, the introduction of time-based control. The hypothesis of structure's impact on controller complexity was supported through an innovative aircraft complexity assessment technique Benefits of time-based control were shown both in terms of controller performance and subjective complexity rating results.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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