MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132827675 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1995.538266

A dialogue-based approach to the design of user interfaces for supervisory control systems

2002· article· en· W2132827675 on OpenAlexaff
Lyn Bartram, Russell Ovans

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceUser interfaceFacilitatorTask (project management)Interface (matter)Supervisory controlUser interface designProcess (computing)Relevance (law)Control (management)Artificial intelligenceUser experience designProgramming languageSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supervisory control systems (SCS), such as those used in process control, are notable for very large information spaces, highly concurrent activity and time-critical operator and system response. The arduous task of monitoring and controlling the physical process is exacerbated by the cognitive burden of comprehending and manipulating the interface itself. Problems arise because the task of managing the interface impedes the task the interface is supposed to serve: managing the control system and physical process. The interface is both the place and the means of human-computer communication: an appropriate model of this communication is central to the design of effective SCS-user interfaces. This paper presents an approach to specifying the role of the human-computer interface as facilitator and mediator of multiple concurrent dialogues. In addition, an information taxonomy based on the operator's task of monitoring and controlling an SCS is defined. The model's relevance to the design of intelligent user interfaces is noted.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207