MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123273301 · doi:10.1177/1071181312561087

Team Displays Work, Particularly with Communication Breakdown: Performance and Situation Awareness in a Simulated Forest Fire

2012· article· en· W2123273301 on OpenAlexaff
Avi Parush, Chunyun Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkSituation awarenessControl (management)Work (physics)Computer scienceCognitionApplied psychologySimulationPsychologyEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A team display provides integrated information required by teams performing command and control tasks in complex situations. This study assessed the impact of such an information display using the C 3 Fire micro-world simulation of command and control tasks when managing forest fire incidents. The study focused on the impact of the team display when teamwork was interrupted by communication breakdown. The findings show that performance was significantly better with the team display, in terms of a lower mean number of lost houses, particularly when there was a communication breakdown. In addition, the presence of the team display was associated with better situation awareness. In practical terms, the study shows that a team display facilitates performance and situation awareness. In theoretical terms, there may be other cognitive processes and contributing factors to the benefit of the team display in addition to facilitating situation awareness.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations16
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