Towards a Taxonomy of Human Factors Research: A Multi-Dimensional Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes an overarching structure for describing and organizing the content of human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) research. Instead of a uni-dimensional, topic-based approach to classification, instances of research are classified according to five dimensions: domain, phenomenon/task, intervention, method and theory/concepts. A small study was conducted to explore the utility of the proposed taxonomy using a data set of 55 journal papers and three different coders. This study generated preliminary support for the general utility of a multi-dimensional taxonomy for HF/E and for the specific utility of the proposed dimensions. Most importantly, this study identified difficulties associated with the development and application of such a taxonomy to inform future development and evaluation efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.046 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".