MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104254968 · doi:10.1177/1541931214581181

An Empirical Model of Cultural Factors on Trust in Automation

2014· article· en· W2104254968 on OpenAlexaff
Shih‐Yi Chien, Michael Lewis, Zhaleh Semnani‐Azad, Katia Sycara

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectancy theoryPsychologyContext (archaeology)Transparency (behavior)AutomationSocial psychologyAffect (linguistics)Exploratory factor analysisProcess (computing)Knowledge managementApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is conceived to be an important factor mediating an individual’s reliance on automation. Studies have shown individual and cultural differences as well as tasking context significantly affect an individual’s development of trust behaviors. This paper reports preliminary progress in developing a psychometrically grounded subjective measure of trust in automation. A total of 110 items from 8 existing instruments were considered for inclusion in this instrument using Amazon Mechanical Turk to supply samples. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine the dimensionality of the data, with 42 items selected for continued refinement. Our proposed model comprises 3 main constructs (performance expectancy, process transparency, and purpose influence) along with 3 types of moderators (cultural-technological contexts, individual, and cultural differences).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2014
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