A function-behavior-state approach to designing human-machine interface for nuclear power plant operators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an approach to human-machine interface design for control room operators of nuclear power plants. The first step in designing an interface for a particular application is to determine information content that needs to be displayed. The design methodology for this step is called the interface design framework (called framework ). Several frameworks have been proposed for applications at varying levels, including process plants. However, none is based on the design and manufacture of a plant system for which the interface is designed. This paper presents an interface design framework which originates from design theory and methodology for general technical systems. Specifically, the framework is based on a set of core concepts of a function-behavior-state model originally proposed by the artificial intelligence research community and widely applied in the design research community. Benefits of this new framework include the provision of a model-based fault diagnosis facility, and the seamless integration of the design (manufacture, maintenance) of plants and the design of human-machine interfaces. The missing linkage between design and operation of a plant was one of the causes of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor incident. A simulated plant system is presented to explain how to apply this framework in designing an interface. The resulting human-machine interface is discussed; specifically, several fault diagnosis examples are elaborated to demonstrate how this interface could support operators' fault diagnosis in an unanticipated situation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".