MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999053430 · doi:10.1177/1071181311551069

Mapping Ecologically to Modalities

2011· article· en· W1999053430 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine M. Burns, Geoffrey Ho, G. Robert Arrabito

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceModalitiesPerceptionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionInterface (matter)Control (management)Interface designWork (physics)CognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological interface design (EID) is an approach to designing user interfaces that is based on the objective of providing functional system relationships to users in ways that reduce perceptual load. While EID has strong methods for determining the needed functional relationships through the analytical methods of Cognitive Work Analysis (Vicente, 1999), relatively little attention has been paid to establishing the design mappings that reduce perceptual load. We propose that different kinds of information should be assessed for perceptual fit to various modalities. In particular, those mappings that combine appropriate forms of reference with strong perceptual affordances will likely be the most successful. A case study applying this approach to the design of a multimodal ground control station for uninhabited aerial vehicle control is discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
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