MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100726938 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2013.2239595

Effects of display mode and input method for handheld control of micro aerial vehicles for a reconnaissance mission

2013· article· en· W2100726938 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsJoystickMobile deviceStylusComputer scienceComputer visionOperator (biology)Target acquisitionArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micro aerial vehicles (MAVs) are small lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles used by dismounted soldiers for aerial reconnaissance and acquiring information for local situation awareness. MAVs require a portable handheld ground control station (GCS) that allows the operator to control and monitor the flight of the MAV. This paper investigated two methods of presenting map and sensor information, either simultaneously on one display or separately on two displays, requiring operator navigation. In addition, two input devices are evaluated: a touch screen display with a stylus versus a joystick with an OK button. The findings suggest that MAV GCSs that use touch screen inputs and simultaneous presentation of map and sensor information will result in better operator performance and reduced operator workload.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.349 · 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