MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007301751 · doi:10.1109/thms.2014.2382475

An Observer/Predictor-Based Model of the User for Attaining Situation Awareness

2015· article· en· W2007301751 on OpenAlexafffund
Neda Eskandari, Guy A. Dumont, Z. Jane Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)EstimatorObserver (physics)User interfaceAutomationHuman–computer interactionControl (management)Interface (matter)Controller (irrigation)Invariant (physics)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Situation awareness (SA) is essential for the safe operation of systems involving human-automation interaction. In this paper, using the theory of functional observers, we model SA for the user interacting with a continuous-time linear time-invariant dynamical system. For systems under human control or shared control, we use the proposed model to determine the required information to be displayed in the user interface for achieving SA. The user interface provides the user with the ability to observe the continuous-time outputs of the system, as well as the ability to enter continuous-time control inputs. In some systems, due to inadequacy of the displayed information, the user may not be able to accomplish the desired task. To determine the required information to be displayed and the necessary states to be tracked, we propose a model of attaining SA for the users by modeling the user as a specific type of estimator (i.e., the extended delayed functional observer/predictor). We then evaluate what information is needed for such an estimator and how the desired functional of the states have to be expanded so that the user can precisely reconstruct and accurately predict the desired task. As an application example, we investigate the problem of controlling the depth of anesthesia during surgery and determine whether there exists a feasible combination of the expanded task and the displayed information that allows the anesthetist to precisely predict the depth of anesthesia of the patient.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine SystemsSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207