MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999927450 · doi:10.1177/154193120304700114

The Impact of Automation Use on the Mental Model: Findings from the Air Traffic Control Domain

2003· article· en· W1999927450 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ashley Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAir traffic controlDomain (mathematical analysis)Controller (irrigation)Computer scienceAutomationControl (management)Air traffic controllerSituation awarenessVisualizationRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ‘Free Flight’ (FF) concept has been proposed as a means of reducing delay in the airspace system. However, concerns over lapses in a controller's situation awareness as a result of FF implementation have prompted an influx of new technologies aimed at helping controllers more effectively predict the future trajectories of aircraft thereby preserving situation awareness. Such aids are based on the principle of direct visualization, whereby future system states are presented without providing adequate information to the user as to how these states were generated. Usage of aids that employ this design principle can have adverse effects on the mental model given that the user is not forced to extensively think about the processes governing the prediction. Drawing on the results from an empirical study in the air traffic control domain, evidence of this concern is presented and it is argued that caution must be exercised when introducing these aids, given the possibility that such usage may compromise a controller's ability to problem-solve and acquire knowledge.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2003
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