MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135024006 · doi:10.1177/0018720813491283

Development and Validation of a Multilevel Model for Predicting Workload Under Routine and Nonroutine Conditions in an Air Traffic Management Center

2013· article· en· W2135024006 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Neal, Sam Hannah, Penelope Sanderson, Scott Bolland, Martijn Mooij, Sean C. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadStaffingInterval (graph theory)Work (physics)Operations researchComputer scienceMultilevel modelSimulationOperations managementEngineeringReliability engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting variability in the mental workload experienced by frontline operators under routine and nonroutine conditions. BACKGROUND: Excess workload is a risk that needs to be managed in safety-critical industries. Predictive models are needed to manage this risk effectively yet are difficult to develop. Much of the difficulty stems from the fact that workload prediction is a multilevel problem. METHOD: A multilevel workload model was developed in Study I with data collected from an en route air traffic management center. Dynamic density metrics were used to predict variability in workload within and between work units while controlling for variability among raters.The model was cross-validated in Studies 2 and 3 with the use of a high-fidelity simulator. RESULTS: Reported workload generally remained within the bounds of the 90% prediction interval in Studies 2 and 3. Workload crossed the upper bound of the prediction interval only under nonroutine conditions. Qualitative analyses suggest that nonroutine events caused workload to cross the upper bound of the prediction interval because the controllers could not manage their workload strategically. CONCLUSION: The model performed well under both routine and nonroutine conditions and over different patterns of workload variation. APPLICATION: Workload prediction models can be used to support both strategic and tactical workload management. Strategic uses include the analysis of historical and projected workflows and the assessment of staffing needs.Tactical uses include the dynamic reallocation of resources to meet changes in demand.

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 score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietySame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207