MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050739232 · doi:10.3166/ria.23.449-466

The influence of stress and mood on decision making in critical situations. To what extent can we predict human performance?

2009· article· en· W2050739232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E.W.M. Rondeel, Masja H. Kempen, N.J.E. Wijngaards, C.H.M. Nieuwenhuis, Rob W. Holland

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodStress (linguistics)PsychologySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this position paper a number of hypotheses are outlined concerning the effect of three measurable human factors, namely subjective stress, arousal and mood, on human decision making performance; taking into account the amount of risk involved in the decision. The proposed domain of application involves critical situations: situations in which time-limits, uncertainty and possibly dire consequences provide an ideal context to apply the results. A tangible objective is to provide the basis for a demonstrator which can measure subjective stress, arousal and mood on the job, provide runtime feedback and positively influence the human decision making process.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207