MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046425818 · doi:10.1177/1071181312561328

Missing Critical Auditory Alarms in Aeronautics: Evidence for Inattentional Deafness?

2012· article· en· W2046425818 on OpenAlex
Frédéric Dehais, Mickaël Causse, Nicolas Régis, Eric Menant, Patrice Labedan, François Vachon, Sébastien Tremblay

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

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsALARMPerceptionPsychologyInattentional blindnessDebriefingCognitionCognitive psychologyAeronauticsAudiologyEngineeringSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inability of pilots to detect unexpected changes in the environment (e.g., auditory alarms) is a critical problem in aeronautics. The lack of response to alarms is not thought to be a perceptual/attentional issue, but rather that pilots choose to ignore such warnings due to cognitive biases. In the current paper we consider an alternative explanation, by extending the phenomenon of inattentional deafness to aeronautics. Fourteen pilots equipped with an eye tracker and an electrocardiogram performed landings in a flight simulator. During the critical landing, an auditory landing gear alarm was triggered while the volunteers also faced a windshear. Eight out of 14 pilots did not report the occurrence of the critical alarm during the debriefing. Interestingly, all but one of these ‘deaf’ pilots failed to perform the adequate go-around behavior. These findings establish inattentional deafness as a cognitive phenomenon that is critical for air safety.

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)0.001
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 score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.308 · 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