MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071411949 · doi:10.1177/1071181312561039

Factors Affecting the Learning of a New Air Traffic Control Sector for Experienced Air Traffic Controllers

2012· article· en· W2071411949 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Cho, Jonathan Histon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir traffic controlAviationAir traffic controllerStaffingFlexibility (engineering)Transport engineeringControl (management)Air traffic managementEngineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing generic airspace is one means of addressing the need for increased staffing flexibility as part of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) NextGen Air Traffic Control modernization efforts. Assessing the similarity of airspace sectors and identifying groups of sectors is a key step in enabling the generic airspace concept. In order to assess similarities of airspace sectors, factors affecting how quickly a controller makes a transition from one sector to another were identified using semi-structured interviews with experienced air traffic controllers. The most important factors appear to reflect familiarity with types of operations and common traffic patterns, providing a basis for classifying groups of sectors for the generic airspace concept.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
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